Another non-surprise

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Friday, August 7, 2009 21:37
VIEWED: 11950
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:13 PM

Teen Pregnancy and Disease Rates Rose Sharply During Bush Years, Agency Finds

• AIDS cases in adolescent boys have nearly doubled
• Fall in gonorrhea infection rate reversed
by Chris McGreal in Washington

Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush's evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US's major public health body.

(Blend Images/Getty Images)In a report that will surprise few of Bush's critics on the issue, the Centres for Disease Control says years of falling rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease infections under previous administrations were reversed or stalled in the Bush years. According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but are up sharply in more than half of American states since 2005. The study also revealed that the number of teenage females with syphilis has risen by nearly half after a significant decrease while a two-decade fall in the gonorrhea infection rate is being reversed. The number of Aids cases in adolescent boys has nearly doubled.

The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PHOENIXROSE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:28 PM

*gasp* You mean to suggest that education is the answer? No wai!

[/sig]

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:49 PM

But sex is icky and exposure to it will corrupt our sinful, blasphemous young!

My GOD, I was PRODUCED by sex! /ends self

KWICKO

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:17 PM

Remember, you must all tell your children that sex is wrong and a sin, and if they do it they'll be punished by having children of their own. That oughta make them feel loved and wanted, right?

RUE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:20 PM

My parents (Polish) had a very Eastern European attitude - just wait till you grow up and have children of your own (a threat, not a promise).

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:21 PM

Rue,

Please provide a link to the study in question. Oh, and of course it was Bush's fault. Why blame the parents when you can blame big, bad Bush.

RUE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:26 PM

Yeah, after all, things had been going hunky-dory for all those years but then all of the SUDDEN !, like WOW ! the parents just got really bad, all over the country ! They all musta' talked or somethin' ...

***************************************************************

Get a grip, loser.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Yeah, after all, things had been going hunky-dory for all those years but then all of the SUDDEN !, like WOW ! the parents just got really bad, all over the country ! They all musta' talked or somethin' ...

Could be, still waiting on that link.

RUE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:25 PM

Fingers broken ? Know how to be a stupid troll and STILL don't know how to google ?

Loser.

***************************************************************

Let me just repeat what is it you think could REALLY have happened ... so people don't miss what a loser you are:

"Yeah, after all, things had been going hunky-dory for all those years but then all of the SUDDEN !, like WOW ! the parents just got really bad, all over the country ! They all musta' talked or somethin' ..."

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:32 PM

I looked it up, because that's a good point, BDN. Sources sources sources.

Here's all the news articles I found.

http://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&q=CDC+and+teenage+pregnancy&um
=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=d-bfnTl_Fdd404M&ei=9UBmSpa5OYGasgPsyujrDg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=5

http://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&q=CDC+and+teenage+pregnancy&um
=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dU8o76ZAagpJ6qM&ei=9UBmSpa5OYGasgPsyujrDg&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=4

RUE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:37 PM

Or you could go to The Guardian (UK):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/bush-teen-pregnancy-cdc-re
port

It's not hard to find - if you look.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fingers broken ? Know how to be a stupid troll and STILL don't know how to google ?

Perhaps it is trollish to continually quote sources and not provide the link to the source quoted. Even though you have been continually asked to do so.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Or you could go to The Guardian (UK):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/bush-teen-pregnancy-cdc-re
port

It's not hard to find - if you look.

Thank-you Rue, was that so hard?

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:11 AM

That's another reason why my youngest niece will listen to no one else.

She didn't get "the talk" till she was fifteen, cause all the adults flat refused to tell her anything, and worse, what they did speak of, they LIED about.

Didn't do a lot for her already slim faith in adults, that.

She got the same "sex-ed" from the same school I did, even now many years later, naught more than a 40 minute lecture consisting of more or less "this is sex, it's bad, don't do it" - so much for education, eh ?

Adding to the problem is the toxicity of the local cultural attitudes, since boys in that area are almost NEVER upbraided or penalized whatsoever for their conduct no matter how far they take it - which compounded by her own nonviolent tendencies is a recipe for disaster held in check only by the belief amongst those punks that her uncle works for the mafia.

I fear she's gonna wind up like most of her classmates and wind up with some scumbag "boyfriend" she in fact despises just to keep the other boys hands off her.

Amazing that for all their investment into control and surveillance (156 cameras, minus the four in the bathrooms removed after a certain assistant administrator was proven to be voyeurising..) they cannot seem to control the conduct of their male students towards the girls, but heaven forfend you bring gum to school, oh noes...

Anyhows, that issue isn't the least of my peeves about public school, but I do have a novel suggestion if the school and the family can't manage to bring up the topic.

Have the family doctor explain matters, they're a neutral party, trusted medical professional, and can probably handle it in the matter of fact way that it should be.

Cheap at the price, and considering the potential consequences of inaction.

-F

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:57 AM

One thing I enjoyed about growing up in Germany was that teen magazines cover sex really very well.

I learned a LOT as a 12-year-old, by reading a steady litany of "Aids - avoid it, use condoms" or reading question/answer collumns like "How should I prepare for my first time with my boyfriend?", "When we have sex, I don't enjoy it, what should I do?", "I can't talk to my parents, where can I get birth control".

The answers: condoms condoms condoms, lube, TALK TO each other and your doctors.

Overall, kids here are pretty well educated about safe sex.

Do American teen magazines deal with this sort of thing?

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:08 AM

Whoa! Hold the phone!

Not too long ago, Rue, you told me that government sites couldn't be completely trusted due to Bush's meddling in the information.

But now you are quoting a source that used a government site (the CDC) for their information? Why didn't Bush attempt to cover that information up if he was so down-right sneaky and evil?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
One thing I enjoyed about growing up in Germany was that teen magazines cover sex really very well.

I learned a LOT as a 12-year-old, by reading a steady litany of "Aids - avoid it, use condoms" or reading question/answer collumns like "How should I prepare for my first time with my boyfriend?", "When we have sex, I don't enjoy it, what should I do?", "I can't talk to my parents, where can I get birth control".

The answers: condoms condoms condoms, lube, TALK TO each other and your doctors.

Overall, kids here are pretty well educated about safe sex.

Do American teen magazines deal with this sort of thing?

Sadly, no. They talk mostly about how hot Zac Ephron is, what the Jonas Brothers had for lunch or how Miley Cyrus dumped her latest boyfriend.

But yeah. To blame this on Bush is just ridiculous. The responsibility of sex ed lies squarely on the shoulders of the parents. So, the parents failed and it was probably a gradual thing. Not some sudden, "Hey! Bush is in office and telling me NOT to have sex because it's eeeevil! Let's do it just to make him look bad!" I mean really . . . how many kids really pay attention to what politicians are saying? And did Bush really make some sort of mandate that had to be carried out "or else?" I don't recall that being put into law or anything.

I've had "the talk" with my son and he was 12 at the time, I think. Why? Because he was caught looking at some inappropriate sites. So I had to sit him down and go over some do's and don'ts. And yes, being a Christian, I told him it's better to wait until he's married, but I also shared MY past with him which included a fair share of fooling around before marriage and plenty of looking at inappropriate sites. I told him that comparing the two, I really should have waited. Not that it was evil or whatever, but that our belief system tells us that that behavior kinda spoils the marriage experience and the affection we should have only for our wives. Why didn't I yell at him and punish him? Because that only drives any urges he may have deeper and make him not want to share any of his emotions or feelings with me ever again. I've made it perfectly clear that he can come and talk to me about anything and I won't get mad. I've left the door wide open for him to come and talk to me at any time and I often bring things up myself.

Oh . . . Rue, I'll point this out because I know you'd do the same for me . . . the Guardian is a left-leaning, liberal media outlet. So surely you meant to use a NON-partisan site for your source, eh?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
"Yeah, after all, things had been going hunky-dory for all those years but then all of the SUDDEN !, like WOW ! the parents just got really bad, all over the country ! They all musta' talked or somethin' ..."

That was my whole point to begin with. I'm guessing your aim was to somwhow show that teen pregnancies and std's were less under Clinton then they were under Bush. I say why let the government decide what is the best way to go about sex education.

I also think this article is somewhat lacking in regards to corollary evidence. Are the number of teen pregnancies more as a whole or as a percentage of teens in general? Are more teens getting pregnant / std's or are there just more teens?

Does it naturally follow that pregnancies / std's are up because of Bush's policy? Does it have anything to do with the fact that society as a whole is becoming more sexualized? Do you think Clinton knew what sexting was? Were most kids able to download porn to their i-phones during the Clinton years?

How about the non-stop sexual messages and innuendos that constantly bombard us over the airwaves? Have those increased or decreased since Clinton held the big chair?

Heck, even your linked article comes to no definitive conclusions.

Although the CDC does not attribute a cause, groups that support comprehensive sex education have seized on the report as evidence of the failure of religiously-driven policies that shy away from teaching about contraception in favour of emphasising avoiding sexual contact.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/bush-teen-pregnancy-cdc-re
port

I thought those on the left wanted government to stay out of their bedrooms. Do you want them in your kid's?

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
"Yeah, after all, things had been going hunky-dory for all those years but then all of the SUDDEN !, like WOW ! the parents just got really bad, all over the country ! They all musta' talked or somethin' ..."

That was my whole point to begin with. I'm guessing your aim was to somwhow show that teen pregnancies and std's were less under Clinton then they were under Bush. I say why let the government decide what is the best way to go about sex education.

I also think this article is somewhat lacking in regards to corollary evidence. Are the number of teen pregnancies more as a whole or as a percentage of teens in general? Are more teens getting pregnant / std's or are there just more teens?

Does it naturally follow that pregnancies / std's are up because of Bush's policy? Does it have anything to do with the fact that society as a whole is becoming more sexualized? Do you think Clinton knew what sexting was? Were most kids able to download porn to their i-phones during the Clinton years?

How about the non-stop sexual messages and innuendos that constantly bombard us over the airwaves? Have those increased or decreased since Clinton held the big chair?

Heck, even your linked article comes to no definitive conclusions.

Although the CDC does not attribute a cause, groups that support comprehensive sex education have seized on the report as evidence of the failure of religiously-driven policies that shy away from teaching about contraception in favour of emphasising avoiding sexual contact.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/bush-teen-pregnancy-cdc-re
port

I thought those on the left wanted government to stay out of their bedrooms. Do you want them in your kid's?

Good points, BDN. I didn't think of the sexting and cell phone issues. Those are completely relevant.

I also agree with the innuendo over the airwaves. You can't even go to ABC Family anymore without being bombarded with that kind of behavior. It's shown there as being okay and normal, so that's what kids want to emulate - what they see on TV and hear in their music. Heck, even FoxNews.com has a Babe of the week thing featuring a photo spread from Maxim magazine. My point here is that the entertainment industry can be considered mostly liberal, right? Always looking for ways to "push the envelope" to see what they can get away with. So more and more stuff is allowed to be seen and heard on TV. And to think THAT doesn't have an ever-increasing effect on kids today with the addition of the increasing lack of parental involvement and the mindset of many folk today may just be a little naive.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:58 PM

So while neither of you see a correlation between Bush-era abstinence-only "education" and the rise of teen pregnancy and STDs (I wonder if Bristol Palin sees a correlation?), you DO see a correlation between the media and such statistics.

I take it neither of you ever listened to Judas Priest; if you had, you'd have no doubt killed yourself by now! (Look up the lawsuit if you don't get that joke)

What you're arguing is that kids couldn't be susceptible to the kinds of things they're taught in school (i.e., sex education in health class). But then you also want to argue that we must stop teaching evolution, because kids are far too susceptible to what they're taught in school.

Curious, that.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

RUE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:02 PM

"Perhaps it is trollish to continually quote sources and not provide the link to the source quoted. Even though you have been continually asked to do so."

Only by TROLLS like you and Geezer who seem to ask NO ONE ELSE for sources. So jeeze, it's not like you're REALLY interested in sources, are you ? It's pretty obvious to everyone - you're just out to be trolls and idiots.

***************************************************************

Though it's not like you actually have any ability to be anything else. You - born a bottom feeder, always will be one.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:06 PM

Those could definitely be factors, though I think we'd have to show that sexting leads to pregnancy.

But I think there's a teenage mindset that is being completely ignored, and it's BEEN ignored since sexual liberation in the 60s. Teenagers are CURIOUS. They hear about sex, there's such an emphasis about having sex as a monumental life milestone that they feel ENCOURAGED to have it even when everyone is telling them no, it's a bad idea. Mixed messages abound. Since when do teens listen to people telling them what's a bad idea if they want to do something or are under peer pressure to do so?

My thinking is, if they're going to do it anyway, give them all the information they need to protect themselves... And to not be traumatized by it, because, hey, isn't always good, particularly if they choose less than admirable partners for their first time, or cling to such a partner. You can still teach kids belief in sex and marriage as being preferable, but that should be the realm of the parent, I think, not the school.

I don't understand parents who want to limit their children's knowledge on an issue that could cause them harm. I think that's bad parenting, if not outright negligence. It can be almost criminal in cases, especially if it results in fights over any resulting pregnancies, whether the teenage mother must keep her baby, or whether she's forced to abort it.

I'd also be interested in the effect that the movie Juno is having on teenage ideas of pregnancy. The oddest things can become trendy... Though I have to say, I love that movie for how accepting and supportive the families are.

RUE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:08 PM

"Whoa! Hold the phone!

Not too long ago, Rue, you told me that government sites couldn't be completely trusted due to Bush's meddling in the information.

But now you are quoting a source that used a government site (the CDC) for their information? Why didn't Bush attempt to cover that information up if he was so down-right sneaky and evil?"

DUDE - have you NOTICED there is a new face in the WH ? Or did that escape your little mind ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:12 PM

"The responsibility of sex ed lies squarely on the shoulders of the parents. So, the parents failed ..."

And where children USED to get helpful information in school, DUE TO BUSH THAT ALL STOPPED. And HOW did it stop ? BUSH REFUSED TO PROVIDE FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDS FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX ED.

Tell me, does it take a lot of effort to be such a big idiot ? Or does it come naturally to you ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Whoa! Hold the phone!

Not too long ago, Rue, you told me that government sites couldn't be completely trusted due to Bush's meddling in the information.

But now you are quoting a source that used a government site (the CDC) for their information? Why didn't Bush attempt to cover that information up if he was so down-right sneaky and evil?"

DUDE - have you NOTICED there is a new face in the WH ? Or did that escape your little mind ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DUDETTE!!! My little mind notices that every day. But still, the statistics I used were from a government site AFTER Obama took office and you still claimed it was tainted by BUSH!

So, please. Stop talking down to me.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Whoa! Hold the phone!

Not too long ago, Rue, you told me that government sites couldn't be completely trusted due to Bush's meddling in the information.

But now you are quoting a source that used a government site (the CDC) for their information? Why didn't Bush attempt to cover that information up if he was so down-right sneaky and evil?"

DUDE - have you NOTICED there is a new face in the WH ? Or did that escape your little mind ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DUDETTE!!! My little mind notices that every day. But still, the statistics I used were from a government site AFTER Obama took office and you still claimed it was tainted by BUSH!

So, please. Stop talking down to me.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:12 PM

I think the argument being made there, Rue, is how could the CDC have gathered data if the efforts to do so were being repressed?

The answer is that they STILL gather the data and even keep it on file, but the REPORTS issued to the public/congress are editted and censored heavily, often to promote the OPPOSITE political stance that the numbers would normally suggest.

At the EPA, for example, there's a union of scientists, and they RARELY see eye-to-eye with their administrative supervisors. They protect the information, and in more favourable political climates, they then release their findings as they originally wanted them to be released.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The responsibility of sex ed lies squarely on the shoulders of the parents. So, the parents failed ..."

And where children USED to get helpful information in school, DUE TO BUSH THAT ALL STOPPED. And HOW did it stop ? BUSH REFUSED TO PROVIDE FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDS FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX ED.

Tell me, does it take a lot of effort to be such a big idiot ? Or does it come naturally to you ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Funny how the name calling has started so easily with you lately.

So, Government should be responsible for each and every decision we make as parents. Is that what you're saying. That PARENTS really have no input into what or how or when their children should be taught something so delicate as sex education?

Hmmmmmm . . .

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RUE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:14 PM

"... the statistics I used ..."

You did ? Where ? You cited NO statistics. Are you making shit up again ? Or lying, like usual ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:17 PM

"So, Government should be responsible for each and every decision we make as parents. Is that what you're saying. That PARENTS really have no input into what or how or when their children should be taught something so delicate as sex education?

Hmmmmmm . . ."

And yet once again, you fail to read simple English with any comprehension. Maybe if you go back, and read rreeaaalllyy, r-r-e-e-e-a-a-a-a-l-l-l-l-y-y-y-y-y sloooooooowly, you might get it this time.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... the statistics I used ..."

You did ? Where ? You cited NO statistics. Are you making shit up again ? Or lying, like ususal ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

*Sigh*

I don't recall the thread. It was several months ago so I don't really expect you to remember, but it was a government related medical site and you lept right in saying it was tainted by Bush. As you so pointedly said to me in yet another thread (no I can't remember which one) I don't have the time to go hunt it down and prove you wrong.

Sheesh! You're mighty tetchy lately.

I know . . . I know . . . it's all my fault for being so partisan.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RUE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think the argument being made there, Rue, is how could the CDC have gathered data if the efforts to do so were being repressed?

The answer is that they STILL gather the data and even keep it on file, but the REPORTS issued to the public/congress are editted and censored heavily, often to promote the OPPOSITE political stance that the numbers would normally suggest.

At the EPA, for example, there's a union of scientists, and they RARELY see eye-to-eye with their administrative supervisors. They protect the information, and in more favourable political climates, they then release their findings as they originally wanted them to be released.

Maybe you need to explain that to the idiots on the board like Big8888Nobody and Rip, since they seem unable to comprehend HOW it is that one administration might suppress or misrepresent reports at the administrative level.

***************************************************************

If you don't believe me, see the idiocy posted just above.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"So, Government should be responsible for each and every decision we make as parents. Is that what you're saying. That PARENTS really have no input into what or how or when their children should be taught something so delicate as sex education?

Hmmmmmm . . ."

And yet once again, you fail to read simple English with any comprehension. Maybe if you go back, and read rreeaaalllyy, r-r-e-e-e-a-a-a-a-l-l-l-l-y-y-y-y-y sloooooooowly, you might get it this time.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Oh no. Clearly by reading very slowly, which you're obviously not doing either, you stated that it was because of the Bush Adminstration's policies that this sudden rise took place. You make no mention of taking into consideration what BDM or I said about our culture that keeps pushing these ideas on the youth of today or the responsibilities of the parents. Therefore, you lay the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the government with no one else to blame but Bush.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So while neither of you see a correlation between Bush-era abstinence-only "education" and the rise of teen pregnancy and STDs (I wonder if Bristol Palin sees a correlation?), you DO see a correlation between the media and such statistics.

I take it neither of you ever listened to Judas Priest; if you had, you'd have no doubt killed yourself by now! (Look up the lawsuit if you don't get that joke)

What you're arguing is that kids couldn't be susceptible to the kinds of things they're taught in school (i.e., sex education in health class). But then you also want to argue that we must stop teaching evolution, because kids are far too susceptible to what they're taught in school.

Curious, that.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

I didn't say I didn't see a correlation, I just find it curious that Rue's intent of this thread is to supposedly lay the entire thing squarely on Bush's shoulders when there are SO many more things involved in the equation to make that hypothesis a little more than humorous. At least to me, anyway. Aside from the technology, media, music, etc. I think the entire mindset of our culture nowadays has become more than lax. I know more kids in 7th-8th grade whose parents let them watch practically any movie they want regardless of the rating. So you tell me THAT doesn't have an effect on how a kids sees and reacts to the world around them? Sure you can teach sex ed in school, but their surroundings are gonna tell them something entirely different.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RUE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:41 PM

"... our culture that keeps pushing these ideas on the youth of today ..."

And was it different 4 years ago ? 5 ? CLEARLY you mean to say that there was SUCH a radical cultural shift that (though SOMEhow it escaped notice !) it drove HIV rate to DOUBLE in 4 years ! If THAT is what you are thinking, CLEARLY you are an idiot.

"... or the responsibilities of the parents."

And CLEARLY you don't know how to read. Where did I post that when parents didn't do the job it USED to be done by the schools until your 'hero' dubya cut funding for that little bit of education ? Did you manage to read that ? Was it not addressing the role of the parents ?

Go back and find it. Spell it out, if you have to.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:46 PM

"... SO many more things involved in the equation ..."

Only in your sad twisted little mind. None of which you can make a case for that is anything but laughable to anyone else.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:47 PM

I have had students, girls mostly, ask me in all seriousness if it's true that if a girl drinks nothing but Mountain Dew, she cannot get pregnant. Thay've also heard that drinking a capful of bleach before sex prevents pregnancy.

Who needs sex ed?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

MALACHITE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:48 PM

I'm sure people have made this point before, but noone has this thread so I'll chime in: correlation is not causation. So, even though we would agree that std rates, teen pregnancy, abortions(?), etc are rising, and even though they have been rising over the past 8 years, we cannot say that Bush's change of sex education policies has caused that rise. We can only say that it is a coincidence that is perhaps worth looking into.

I personally think that a more reasonable hypothesis for why std rates, etc are rising is because it is more socially acceptable to be having sex, rating standards have continually dropped (ie more sexually inappropriate things can be seen on mainstream tv), our media is overly sexualized (music videos and glamour magazines emphasizing the need to have a beautiful body and our emphasis on keeping women as scantily clad as possible so they will be desirable to men or have power over them) and the negative consequences of sexualized behavior are continually downplayed in the media (and, in fact, it is actually "cool" to be sexually active and you are a loser if you aren't because everyone else is.) No, I don't have links to studies, this is just my opinion based on personal experience. I can also tell you that most of the young adults I counsel who are sexually active know about the risks of stds and pregnancy and know about barrier contraception and oral contraceptives but for whatever reason still choose not to use both of them.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"... our culture that keeps pushing these ideas on the youth of today ..."

And was it different 4 years ago ? 5 ? CLEARLY you mean to say that there was SUCH a radical cultural shift that suddenly, without anyone noticing it happening ! - it drove HIV rate to DOUBLE in 4 years ! If THAT is what you are thinking, CLEARLY you are an idiot.

"... or the responsibilities of the parents."

And CLEARLY you don't know how to read. Where did I post that whne parents did't do the job it USED to be done by the schools until your 'hero' dubya cut funding for that little bit of education. Did you manage to read trhat ? Spell it out if you have to.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Again with the names when I haven't called you a single thing. Hmmmm? And you guys say the Conservatives always start the name calling.

If YOU haven't noticed that it gets worse and worse with each passing year then you're obviously not paying attention. What media and entertainment get away with nowadays (and during the Bush Administration) compared to the Clinton era is pretty hefty. Like I said . . . gradual. Or didn't you read that part?

And I didn't say that you mentioned anything about the parents. You said NOTHING about the responsibility of parents and that was my whole point, that parents need to be more involved and not rely on schools or government to educate their kids on such a delicate subject. Would you agree to that or not? Let's be civil.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

STORYMARK

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

So, Government should be responsible for each and every decision we make as parents. Is that what you're saying. That PARENTS really have no input into what or how or when their children should be taught something so delicate as sex education?

Straw man alert! Whoop whoop!

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

So, Government should be responsible for each and every decision we make as parents. Is that what you're saying. That PARENTS really have no input into what or how or when their children should be taught something so delicate as sex education?

Straw man alert! Whoop whoop!

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

What? Where?

Oh my.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:59 PM

Malachite: But it's been like that through the 80s and 90s. I, like the others, think that there happens to be another factor if in the past few years there's been a sharp increase (and that seems to be what the articles are saying), and I for one am inclined to believe it's policy in school, which has a large effect on the macro-level behaviour of teenagers.

RUE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:04 PM

"If YOU haven't noticed that it gets worse and worse with each passing year ..."

If YOUR baseline only goes back 5 years then of course you see a small ripple as a BIG mountain. BIG picture - 1978 - Pretty Baby. 1970's - Rolling Stones. Rap music - 1970's and on even to today. If you were interested (which I guarantee you are not, b/c your mind is made up and you WILL stick with your pathetic little notions) you could find just as bad, just as much, over the last 30 years. Deal with it. Sex sells, and we live in a profit-above-all culture.

"You said NOTHING about the responsibility of parents and that was my whole point..."

You're friggin' kidding me --- right ? Did you NOT get the idea that many parents DON'T exercise their responsibilities ? Did you NOT get that from any of my posts ? Is that NOT a way of addressing the role of the parents, even if it is to describe how they FAIL at that role ?

I refuse to be civil to someone who is making a POINT of being an idiot.

Now, don't go away mad. Just go away.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If YOUR baseline only goes back 5 years then of course you see a small ripple as a BIG mountain. BIG picture - 1978 - Pretty Baby. 1970's - Rolling Stones. Rap music - 1970's and on even to today. If you were interested (which I guarantee you are not, b/c your mind is made up and you WILL stick with your pathetic little notions) you could find just as bad, just as much, over the last 30 years. Deal with it. Sex sells, and we live in a profit-above-all culture.

And you don't see the gradualness of how it's been getting progressively MORE blatant and acceptable? And where did I say 5 years? I believe I mentioned Clinton. More like 9 years or so.

Quote:
You're friggin' kidding me --- right ? Did you NOT get the idea that many parents DON'T exercise their responsibilities ? Did you NOT get that from any of my posts ? Is that NOT a way of addressing the role of the parents, even if it is to describe how they FAIL at that role ?

Then we agree. Thanks for agreeing with me. That makes me feel better. A simple, "Yes, I agree with you on that point" would have been sufficient, however.

Quote:
I refuse to be civil to someone who is making a POINT of being an idiot.

Despite your continued attempts to make yourself feel better by calling names and belittling others (it's very common actually, look it up), I'll continue to be civil to you. But I do find it funny that my statements are touching such a nerve with you today. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something? I'm just bringing other options to the table and/or asking for clarifications. That's all.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Do American teen magazines deal with this sort of thing?

Sadly, no. They talk mostly about how hot Zac Ephron is, what the Jonas Brothers had for lunch or how Miley Cyrus dumped her latest boyfriend.

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. They really should! It's probably even more effective than school-based sex ed.

Quote:

But yeah. To blame this on Bush is just ridiculous. The responsibility of sex ed lies squarely on the shoulders of the parents.

I have to say, though, that SINCE parents are failing and few other options exist, school-based sex ed becomes all the more important. It has the advantage of reaching a vast majority of kids with actual facts. Facts that can save the lives and health of many children (they do start young, these days) and prevent some bad mistakes.

I don't think that the problem of failing parents is best targeted by not offering an alternative to kids. I think that problem should be targeted parallel to school-based sex ed, because it will always be important.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:28 PM

Thanks for the civil response, AR.

I think another question we have to - or at least SHOULD - ask ourselves is. WHY are parents failing so badly in this area? Come to think of it, though . . . MY parents never had the "talk" with me. And I relied very heavily on the culture around me to guide and direct my actions. And I was a mess for quite a while. To be very honest, sex ed may have been a good idea, but I also may have just taken it all very jokingly because the pull of the culture is so much stronger.

Does that make sense?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Now, don't go away mad. Just go away.

I think it is time once again for you to retire, Mr. Favre.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So while neither of you see a correlation between Bush-era abstinence-only "education" and the rise of teen pregnancy and STDs (I wonder if Bristol Palin sees a correlation?), you DO see a correlation between the media and such statistics.

I disagree with your statement. I believe it is Rue who is having a hard time seeing all the angles here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What you're arguing is that kids couldn't be susceptible to the kinds of things they're taught in school (i.e., sex education in health class). But then you also want to argue that we must stop teaching evolution, because kids are far too susceptible to what they're taught in school.

Curious, that.

Curious indeed, where's Storymark to sound the strawman alarm?

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:59 PM

BYTE

Quote:
I don't understand parents who want to limit their children's knowledge on an issue that could cause them harm. I think that's bad parenting, if not outright negligence. It can be almost criminal in cases, especially if it results in fights over any resulting pregnancies, whether the teenage mother must keep her baby, or whether she's forced to abort it.

Ooooo, can of worms, this is, and let's just pry it open, shall we ?

It's not just sex, it's in fact far worse, and everyone pretends not to see.

A *LOT* of parents cripple their kids ability to strike out on their own for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which overprotectiveness, and in most cases it's as much deliberate as it is negligent.

A lot of the broken kids I deal with were never properly taught how to get along in the world, completely ignorant of the realities of living on ones own, never received any more information on how to manage a budget or run a household than they did on sex - and have no appreciable idea what the real expenses are, and if they do at all it's often wildly exaggerated in one direction or another.

And then, ignorant, clueless and just about helpless, ZING - out the door at eighteen, good bye and good riddance, an often savage break from a home they come to feel is a cage, in desperate flight from an environment that has hemmed in and cut off every avenue for them to develop as an adult person.

Disaster follows naturally as dawn.

My sister is currently a little pissed off at me for having one niece taught to drive, which I paid out of pocket, mind you, and backed up with some real, solid info on making it on your own, and contacts to obtain more information as well as backup and shared resources.

You can imagine what that girl did the night of her 18th B-day right ?

And so I am forbidden from teaching the youngest niece how to drive, she isn't allowed to have a job, not allowed to have friends over, not allowed to have a functioning computer, despite me paying out of pocket for a laptop so she could take networking classes at vo-tech, which got shitcanned by her mother, right along with the laptop...

Which is a combination of severe overprotectiveness and a certain kind of idiotic sense of entitlement - so what if that kid happens to be the only one willing to lift a finger to clean, cook or do laundry while momma works three jobs to cover the heinous expenses of her wrecked marriage, exploitive mortgage and brutal taxes.
(multiplied explonentially by having more than one job)
And this is most certainly not helped along by the expenses of the eldest niece dying from cervical cancer and GBS, which is another strain on the whole matter.

But she is a child, not a servant!
I've found that if so ask her nicely, she will cheerfully take on even unpleasant tasks without hesitation, she's a nice person and non aggressive to a degree that actually bothers me - but give her *orders* and you're asking for trouble - which leads the ridiculousness of her mother doing that KNOWING how stupid it is, and then eventually resolving it by ringing me on the phone and having ME ask her politely because momma couldn't overcome her ownership reflexes long enough for her brain to work...

Anyhows, the kid doesn't know how to drive, only the vaguest idea of how to minimally run a household, and no way does she know how to run a budget because I don't think the poor girl's ever had more than twenty bucks in her entire life, and I happen to be the one who gave it to her!

And were it not for the machinations of her crazy ole uncle, when she did finally and inevitably flee the coop, she'd be hanging out to dry pretty solid given that her immediate family willing or no, is un-ABLE to effectively back her up cause they are buried in their own problems, one of which using her as a personal servant is the current solution to.
(I wish I was exaggerating, but I spent two weeks on vacation there and watched it myself.)

So no, it's not just sex - there's a lot of life development which parents ar

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:02 PM

Quote:
I believe I mentioned Clinton. More like 9 years or so.

How old are you? Too young to remember Woodstock? JFK? Marilyn Monroe?

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:03 PM

Too young is more like it. LOL

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:23 PM

"If every vampire who said he was at the Crucifixion was actually there it would've been like Woodstock. I was at Woodstock. I fed off a flower person and I spent six hours watching my hand move."
-Spike

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Thanks for the civil response, AR.

I think another question we have to - or at least SHOULD - ask ourselves is. WHY are parents failing so badly in this area? Come to think of it, though . . . MY parents never had the "talk" with me. And I relied very heavily on the culture around me to guide and direct my actions. And I was a mess for quite a while. To be very honest, sex ed may have been a good idea, but I also may have just taken it all very jokingly because the pull of the culture is so much stronger.

Does that make sense?

It does! But I think even if kids take something jokingly, the important stuff will still sink in. Stuff like how Aids is transmitted - and how not. Infection rates and reasons. What works for birth control and what not. Complications that can arise, common diseases, how they are transmitted, how they can and should be treated, etc. Maybe it won't be able to prevent all bad choices or forces of peer pressure/emotional blackmail but even kids generally don't ignore information they have when it is really pertinent.

I certainly found the condom-demonstration they did useful, hehe!

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:47 PM

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:59 PM

Frem, you might like Agyar by Steven Brust. It's too complicated to explain but seems to have a flavor you'd appreciate.

MALACHITE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Malachite: But it's been like that through the 80s and 90s. I, like the others, think that there happens to be another factor if in the past few years there's been a sharp increase (and that seems to be what the articles are saying), and I for one am inclined to believe it's policy in school, which has a large effect on the macro-level behaviour of teenagers.

Well, I think your hypothesis is easier to test (mine has too many variables and they are hard to quantify), and hopefully a new sex ed policy will start, and we'll see if there is any improvement in the numbers. My suspicion is that non-abstinence only sex ed will produce better numbers than abstinence only sex ed, but that std rates, abortions and teen pregnancy will still be a significant issue because education alone is not enough to stem the tide of sexual permissiveness, our hypersexualized society,and the newer social outlets that make easy sex more accessible (sexting, internet hook up sites, even craigslist, etc).

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:13 PM

Quote:

Good points, BDN. I didn't think of the sexting and cell phone issues. Those are completely relevant.

They are? Can you now catch AIDS or other STDs over the phone? Does sexting lead to pregnancy? Is it "safe" if you sext your girlfriend a picture of your wang with a condom on it?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:17 PM

Quote:
How about the non-stop sexual messages and innuendos that constantly bombard us over the airwaves?

Do you have any kind of cites or evidence to back up such an allegation, or are you just talking out your ass as usual?

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:33 PM

Quote:

And you don't see the gradualness of how it's been getting progressively MORE blatant and acceptable? And where did I say 5 years? I believe I mentioned Clinton. More like 9 years or so.

I disagree. Way back when, I used to watch Monty Python's Flying Circus on PBS. I was in middle school. I remember one episode where it broke away, saying "And now for fifteen seconds of full frontal nudity" - and that's exactly what they did: show a completely nude woman just standing there.

I haven't seen anything like that on PBS in the last 20 years. Nor have I seen it on any of the major networks. Janet Jackson shows a tit with a pasty on it, and the world goes apeshit with scorn and disapproval. If anything, we're MORE prudish than we used to be, and by a wide margin.

Things that were controversial back then would be felonies now. A nude underage Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, a nude underage Annabella Llwynn on a BowWowWow album cover.

Meanwhile, you cite all the "pressures" faced by teens these days, as if those "pressures" are something new. They're not. When we were teens, all we wanted to do was get laid, and you weren't "cool" unless and until you did it. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Frem, you might like Agyar by Steven Brust. It's too complicated to explain but seems to have a flavor you'd appreciate.

"But that I suppose is the answer. I cannot deny the hunger; I will not deny the feelings either. Does it really matter what you feel when you do something? Does it somehow make a difference if you're sorry when you go blasting your way over someones life like a locomotive over a paper-mache doll?"

Oh indeed, well appreciated, although I found the whole damn thing a bit eerie for reasons I'll not share.

-F

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
How about the non-stop sexual messages and innuendos that constantly bombard us over the airwaves?

Do you have any kind of cites or evidence to back up such an allegation, or are you just talking out your ass as usual?

Britney Spears.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:10 AM

So, WHEN will we legalize prostitution, make a mint off the taxation, make STDs go away, & make adolescent males feel at ease????????????

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
How about the non-stop sexual messages and innuendos that constantly bombard us over the airwaves?

Do you have any kind of cites or evidence to back up such an allegation, or are you just talking out your ass as usual?

Britney Spears.

How is that either a cite OR evidence?

Jesus in a grilled cheese.

There. I just "proved" that all people are pious and Christian.

Idiot. As I suspected, you're just talking out your ass, as usual.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, WHEN will we legalize prostitution, make a mint off the taxation, make STDs go away, & make adolescent males feel at ease????????????

The laughing Chrisisall

Sorry, but none of that is going to get you out of having "The Talk" with SonIsAll.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
How is that either a cite OR evidence?

Jesus in a grilled cheese.

There. I just "proved" that all people are pious and Christian.

Idiot. As I suspected, you're just talking out your ass, as usual.

And I suspect your head is up yours.
Britney Spears was perhaps a start. Here we had a 16 year old girl being sexualized for profit. Who looked up to her? Girls as young as 11 and 12 I would think.

Look, I'm far from a prude. I just think the rise in teen pregnancies can be attributed to much more than just Bush's sex-ed policy. You, apparently, are far to partisan to make the connections yourself. A 'friendly' site threw you the bone you wanted and you sure as hell went off running with it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you now catch AIDS or other STDs over the phone? Does sexting lead to pregnancy? Is it "safe" if you sext your girlfriend a picture of your wang with a condom on it?

Would you leave an open bottle of whiskey and a lit cigarette with a teen?
The point being the easier it is to get and view this material, the more affecting it will be on impressionable youths.
And teens are dumb. I should know as I used to be one. No matter how much education you bombard them with, they will still make dumb decisions. I think it has something to do with the neuro-chemistry of a developing brain or somesuch.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Only by TROLLS like you and Geezer who seem to ask NO ONE ELSE for sources. So jeeze, it's not like you're REALLY interested in sources, are you ? It's pretty obvious to everyone - you're just out to be trolls and idiots.

Almost missed this little gem.

I believe Geezer and myself only ask SignyM and you for sources because you 'two' are the worst offenders, IMHO. If you are taking the time to bring something to our attention, why not show us your source? Are you afraid of someone reading the same articles as you and reaching their own conclusions? Do you simply want to feed us the bits that support your own pov? Did I not read your provided source and try to engage you in a little debate? Just what is this forum for in the first place?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Though it's not like you actually have any ability to be anything else. You - born a bottom feeder, always will be one.

What's the matter Rue? Found out that throwing around crap like this just isn't the same in the real world? Had to come out of 'retirement' to spew your venom at someone before your head exploded?

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:20 AM

Quote:
Britney Spears was perhaps a start. Here we had a 16 year old girl being sexualized for profit. Who looked up to her? Girls as young as 11 and 12 I would think.

And you think it STARTED with Britney Spears? Seriously? How fucking stupid are you, anyway? Man, talk about having your head up your ass...

By the way, I'm still waiting for some kind of link, some kind of study, some kind of real evidence of what you claim. Surely you can cite SOME study that shows that morals and morality in teens went sharply down during the Bush years. After all, isn't that what you're claiming?

Quote:

Look, I'm far from a prude. I just think the rise in teen pregnancies can be attributed to much more than just Bush's sex-ed policy. You, apparently, are far to partisan to make the connections yourself. A 'friendly' site threw you the bone you wanted and you sure as hell went off running with it.

I did? Can you please cite for me exactly where in this whole thread I "went off running with" that "far to partisan" bone that some "friendly" site threw me?

So what "friendly" sites are throwing you the bone that teens have suddenly become completely unable to restrain themselves from having wanton unprotected sex?

Quote:
Would you leave an open bottle of whiskey and a lit cigarette with a teen?

I think the more apt question would be, Would you leave A PICTURE of an open bottle of whiskey and A PICTURE of a lit cigarette with a teen? After all, aren't you the one arguing that it's THE IMAGES that are causing their pregnancies and STDs?

So would you let a teen see a movie like Saw? After all, if you subscribe to what you're claiming, wouldn't that instantly make teens who saw such movies into psycho serial killers?

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:25 AM

Quote:
Found out that throwing around crap like this just isn't the same in the real world? Had to come out of 'retirement' to spew your venom at someone before your head exploded?

Is that why you hang out here, BDN? I always wondered...

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Britney Spears was perhaps a start. Here we had a 16 year old girl being sexualized for profit. Who looked up to her? Girls as young as 11 and 12 I would think.

And you think it STARTED with Britney Spears? Seriously? How fucking stupid are you, anyway? Man, talk about having your head up your ass...

Do try to keep up son. I believe the whole point of this thread was to postulate that teen pregnancies and std's have been on the rise for the last 8-9 years. When did Ms. Spears first rise to prominence? Was it about 8-9 years ago?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, I'm still waiting for some kind of link, some kind of study, some kind of real evidence of what you claim. Surely you can cite SOME study that shows that morals and morality in teens went sharply down during the Bush years. After all, isn't that what you're claiming?

What's wrong, fingers broken? Google not working for ya?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you please cite for me exactly where in this whole thread I "went off running with" that "far to partisan" bone that some "friendly" site threw me?

Do you think the rise in teen pregnancies and std's is based solely on Bush's sex-ed policy?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So what "friendly" sites are throwing you the bone that teens have suddenly become completely unable to restrain themselves from having wanton unprotected sex?

Uh, the article at the heart of this thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think the more apt question would be, Would you leave A PICTURE of an open bottle of whiskey and A PICTURE of a lit cigarette with a teen? After all, aren't you the one arguing that it's THE IMAGES that are causing their pregnancies and STDs?

Please tell me you are purposely being a contrarian and are not really this clueless. Why did Canada ban tobacco companies from sponsoring sporting and cultural events? Why are cigarettes always behind the counter and quite recently, even covered up? Why do bars have to follow the legal age law? Why can't teens just go in to hang out and drink soda?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So would you let a teen see a movie like Saw? After all, if you subscribe to what you're claiming, wouldn't that instantly make teens who saw such movies into psycho serial killers?

I would not. That's why movies have ratings. Has anyone ever tried to emulate a movie with drastic consequences? I don't know about you but I think so. Wasn't a youth recently arrested for running his own 'Project Mayhem' from the movie 'Fight Club'?
Is it illegal to have consensual sex like it's illegal to muder someone or blow up a Starbuck's?

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Britney Spears was perhaps a start. Here we had a 16 year old girl being sexualized for profit. Who looked up to her? Girls as young as 11 and 12 I would think.

And you think it STARTED with Britney Spears? Seriously? How fucking stupid are you, anyway? Man, talk about having your head up your ass...

Do try to keep up son. I believe the whole point of this thread was to postulate that teen pregnancies and std's have been on the rise for the last 8-9 years. When did Ms. Spears first rise to prominence? Was it about 8-9 years ago?

Do try to keep up, miss. I asked if you had any EVIDENCE or any STUDIES or CITES that show any kind of real-world correlation between these things - Britney Spears and increased sex and STDs in teens. After all, YOU wanted some hard evidence when Rue cited Bush-era policies as having some influence.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, I'm still waiting for some kind of link, some kind of study, some kind of real evidence of what you claim. Surely you can cite SOME study that shows that morals and morality in teens went sharply down during the Bush years. After all, isn't that what you're claiming?

What's wrong, fingers broken? Google not working for ya?

Nope. I'm just holding you to the same standards that you want to hold others to. Guess you're not up to the challenge, though. Too hard for ya? Can't figure out the google? Can't find anything that backs up your ludicrous claims? I'm not surprised.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you please cite for me exactly where in this whole thread I "went off running with" that "far to partisan" bone that some "friendly" site threw me?

Do you think the rise in teen pregnancies and std's is based solely on Bush's sex-ed policy?

Solely? I don't know. I think they're a definite factor, though.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So what "friendly" sites are throwing you the bone that teens have suddenly become completely unable to restrain themselves from having wanton unprotected sex?

Uh, the article at the heart of this thread.

The one you so vehemently disagree with? That's your source? The article that shows an apparent correlation between Bush-era sex-ed policies and doesn't show any correlation between Britney Spears and teen pregnancy?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think the more apt question would be, Would you leave A PICTURE of an open bottle of whiskey and A PICTURE of a lit cigarette with a teen? After all, aren't you the one arguing that it's THE IMAGES that are causing their pregnancies and STDs?

Please tell me you are purposely being a contrarian and are not really this clueless.

You claim that it's the images of Britney, the IMAGES that are being "sexted" between kids, the IMAGES on the internet - I asked you if a picture of a whiskey bottle and a lit cigarette would be harmful to a teen. You're comparing apples to bears. You're talking about the effect AN IMAGE of Britney Spears might have on a teen versus AN ACTUAL OPEN BOTTLE OF WHISKEY, and you're acting like those are comparable things. They aren't. Now, if you'd asked if I'd leave Britney's big spread beaver next to a teen along with a bottle of whiskey and a cigarette, you'd actually be on the same page, comparison-wise. It's not "contrarian" to ask that you try to keep your metaphors at least in the same reality matrix.

Quote:

Why did Canada ban tobacco companies from sponsoring sporting and cultural events?

Wait a minute - are you holding Canada up as the example of what to do when it comes to health?

Quote:

Why are cigarettes always behind the counter and quite recently, even covered up? Why do bars have to follow the legal age law? Why can't teens just go in to hang out and drink soda?

Because we've become MORE prudish as a nation, not less, as I

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do try to keep up, miss. I asked if you had any EVIDENCE or any STUDIES or CITES that show any kind of real-world correlation between these things - Britney Spears and increased sex and STDs in teens. After all, YOU wanted some hard evidence when Rue cited Bush-era policies as having some influence.

Dodge, duck, bob and weave.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nope. I'm just holding you to the same standards that you want to hold others to. Guess you're not up to the challenge, though. Too hard for ya? Can't figure out the google? Can't find anything that backs up your ludicrous claims? I'm not surprised.

Who started this thread, Me or Rue? Who made the claim that Bush's sex-ed policy was the cause of increased pregnancies and std's in teens, Me or Rue? Why can you spout your opinion all over this site but I cannot?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Solely? I don't know. I think they're a definite factor, though.

We have a breakthrough.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The one you so vehemently disagree with? That's your source? The article that shows an apparent correlation between Bush-era sex-ed policies and doesn't show any correlation between Britney Spears and teen pregnancy?

I agree with the article that teen pregnancies and std's are on the rise. I do not agree with the conclusion that is being drawn though. Do you see the difference?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You claim that it's the images of Britney, the IMAGES that are being "sexted" between kids, the IMAGES on the internet - I asked you if a picture of a whiskey bottle and a lit cigarette would be harmful to a teen. You're comparing apples to bears. You're talking about the effect AN IMAGE of Britney Spears might have on a teen versus AN ACTUAL OPEN BOTTLE OF WHISKEY, and you're acting like those are comparable things. They aren't. Now, if you'd asked if I'd leave Britney's big spread beaver next to a teen along with a bottle of whiskey and a cigarette, you'd actually be on the same page, comparison-wise. It's not "contrarian" to ask that you try to keep your metaphors at least in the same reality matrix.

It starts with an image and progresses from there.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wait a minute - are you holding Canada up as the example of what to do when it comes to health?

Simply drawing a parallel between teens seeing tobacco companies supporting their favorite events and the effect it might have on teen smoking rates. Do you think increased exposure to pornography might have an effect on teen pregnancy / std rates?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Because we've become MORE prudish as a nation, not less, as I said earlier. Thanks for proving my point.

Then where are teens getting the idea to 'get down' from?.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cites, please? Y'know, just because. You'd do the same for me, I'm sure.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Teen-Arrested-in-Starbucks-Explos
ion-Case.html

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
First off, I'm not sure how you "muder" someone,

Ah yes, harp on the innocent typo's. Not running out of arguments yet, are you?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
but yes, if you're underage, it IS illegal to have consensual sex - even if you're BOTH under legal age. Apparently, though, even that hasn't stopped it from happening.

Guess the police are lining up outside of the free clinics then huh?

KPO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:14 AM

I think there's a good argument for society and the content that teenage minds are exposed to getting more and more sexualised with time, thanks to technology and other factors.

However. This is surely generally true of all countries - so has there been a comparable spike rise in rates of pregnancy/infection in other western nations? Some interesting statistics for the UK that I've found suggest that similar to the US, teen pregnancy rates have stopped falling and may be on the rise, and disease rates are increasing. Perhaps not as pronounced as the US 'spike' but still seemingly significant.

Teen pregnancy rates go up slightly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7911684.stm

Sexually transmitted infections in under-16s rise by 58% (2003-2007):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/19/sexual-health-youngpeopl
e

Heads should roll

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:17 AM

it's all Bush's fault, don't cha know.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do try to keep up, miss. I asked if you had any EVIDENCE or any STUDIES or CITES that show any kind of real-world correlation between these things - Britney Spears and increased sex and STDs in teens. After all, YOU wanted some hard evidence when Rue cited Bush-era policies as having some influence.

Dodge, duck, bob and weave.

Congratulations. You've just named your four favorite methods of "debate". I'm still waiting for that link. In your own words,

Quote:

Perhaps it is trollish to continually quote sources and not provide the link to the source quoted. Even though you have been continually asked to do so.

So where's your source for your info? Can't admit that you're just pulling your "facts" out of your ass?

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nope. I'm just holding you to the same standards that you want to hold others to. Guess you're not up to the challenge, though. Too hard for ya? Can't figure out the google? Can't find anything that backs up your ludicrous claims? I'm not surprised.

Who started this thread, Me or Rue? Who made the claim that Bush's sex-ed policy was the cause of increased pregnancies and std's in teens, Me or Rue? Why can you spout your opinion all over this site but I cannot?

So when Rue "spouts an opinion" it's not valid without cites and sources, but when YOU do it, that's different? How very... REPUBLICAN of you.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Solely? I don't know. I think they're a definite factor, though.

We have a breakthrough.

"We"? Who's this "we" you speak of? I've known for years that abstinence-only education was a losing proposition. Seems that YOU are the one defending the Bush position and desperately casting about looking for ANY other possible correlation or causation.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The one you so vehemently disagree with? That's your source? The article that shows an apparent correlation between Bush-era sex-ed policies and doesn't show any correlation between Britney Spears and teen pregnancy?

I agree with the article that teen pregnancies and std's are on the rise. I do not agree with the conclusion that is being drawn though. Do you see the difference?

Dang. For a minute there, I thought you had a breakthrough... Turns out it was just another of your breakdowns.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You claim that it's the images of Britney, the IMAGES that are being "sexted" between kids, the IMAGES on the internet - I asked you if a picture of a whiskey bottle and a lit cigarette would be harmful to a teen. You're comparing apples to bears. You're talking about the effect AN IMAGE of Britney Spears might have on a teen versus AN ACTUAL OPEN BOTTLE OF WHISKEY, and you're acting like those are comparable things. They aren't. Now, if you'd asked if I'd leave Britney's big spread beaver next to a teen along with a bottle of whiskey and a cigarette, you'd actually be on the same page, comparison-wise. It's not "contrarian" to ask that you try to keep your metaphors at least in the same reality matrix.

It starts with an image and progresses from there.

Better not ever let your kids see images of terrorists then. Might as well start torturing them now, just to be on the safe side.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Wait a minute - are you holding Canada up as the example of what to do when it comes to health?

Simply drawing a parallel between teens seeing tobacco companies supporting their favorite events and the effect it might have on teen smoking rates. Do you think increased exposure to pornography might have an effect on teen pregnancy / std rates?

From personal experience, I'd have to say "No". I've been exposed to plenty of porn, and I've never impregnated a teen or caught an STD.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Because we've

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:07 AM

Quote:
I think there's a good argument for society and the content that teenage minds are exposed to getting more and more sexualised with time, thanks to technology and other factors.

However. This is surely generally true of all countries - so has there been a comparable spike rise in rates of pregnancy/infection in other western nations? Some interesting statistics for the UK that I've found suggest that similar to the US, teen pregnancy rates have stopped falling and may be on the rise, and disease rates are increasing. Perhaps not as pronounced as the US 'spike' but still seemingly significant.

Teen pregnancy rates go up slightly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7911684.stm

Sexually transmitted infections in under-16s rise by 58% (2003-2007):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/19/sexual-health-youngpeopl
e

Now THAT'S interesting!

So what the hell is causing all this then? Aside from the obvious teens having sex thing, what I mean is why are the rates up? More teens in general? Or something completely inexplicable?

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Congratulations. You've just named your four favorite methods of "debate". I'm still waiting for that link. In your own words,...

...So where's your source for your info? Can't admit that you're just pulling your "facts" out of your ass?

Well it looks like there was a study done on this very issue.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/5/1047
Imagine that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nope. I'm just holding you to the same standards that you want to hold others to. Guess you're not up to the challenge, though. Too hard for ya? Can't figure out the google? Can't find anything that backs up your ludicrous claims? I'm not surprised.

Please see above.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So when Rue "spouts an opinion" it's not valid without cites and sources, but when YOU do it, that's different? How very... REPUBLICAN of you.

Careful, your partisan is showing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
"We"? Who's this "we" you speak of? I've known for years that abstinence-only education was a losing proposition. Seems that YOU are the one defending the Bush position and desperately casting about looking for ANY other possible correlation or causation.

I'm not defending the Bush position per se. Merely playing the devil's advocate. Admit it, you haven't posted this much since Auraptor left RWED.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Better not ever let your kids see images of terrorists then. Might as well start torturing them now, just to be on the safe side.

You do enjoy your hyperbole, don't you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
From personal experience, I'd have to say "No". I've been exposed to plenty of porn, and I've never impregnated a teen or caught an STD.

I'm sure it's been alot longer then 8-9 years since you were a teen.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Instinct? Hormones? You seem to think that teens need sexy images to get horny, or that they can't have sex without them. They have been, for quite literally hundreds of thousands of years.

I did not say teens needed sexy images to get horny. I have suggested that it plays a part.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Teen-Arrested-in-Starbucks-Explos
ion-Case.html

See? That wasn't so hard, now was it?

Care to comment on the article? Care to admit that perhaps movies, t.v., music, and magazines might have an affect on teens?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Not at all. I can keep busting you up all night. But I know how much you love to point out my typos, so I thought I'd return the favor. Does this mean that if you ever point out an error in my typing that you're out of arguments and that I've won? Cool - I'll file that in my mental rolodex.

That's funny, I only pointed out one of your typos in response to the 'grammer nazi' bender that you went on with Finn and not Storymark. Do you recall that?

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nah - If they did that, someone might expect them to enforce the federal laws about access to abortion providers, and we sure as hell can't have that now, can we? Besides, the police are far too busy prosecuting kids for "sexting" and labeling them as sex offenders!

Um, okay.

RIPWASH

Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:42 PM

What I'm finding a little odd about this whole thread is that just because BDN and I are postulating that perhaps there's more to this study than the study is making it out to be (i.e. the rise is based on Bush policy vs. Bush policy PLUS a plethora of other things) we're being called idiots and getting attacked personally. Those "to the left" on this board have been touting for quite a while that they've taken the high road while it's those "to the right" that have been the first to start with the personal attacks and name calling. Weird, huh?

I know you're probaby playing Devil's Advocate, Kwick, but you can't tell me that a picture of a bottle of whiskey and a picture of a nekkid lady (legs spread, a "come hither" look on her face, etc.) produce the exact same feelings of want and desire in a teenager? Really? That's what you're insinuating?

One of my points has been that the progress of our culture to being MORE promiscuous has been a gradual thing. Gradual enough that it may seem unnoticeable to some. Folks in Hollywood will flat out tell you that they are always looking for ways to push the envelope. To see how much they can get away with and still stay within certain ratings. And then tell me this doesn't happen - that over time the folks who SET the ratings are becoming less and less strict. PG-13 used to mean that there was SOME racy stuff in a movie, but now, you'll find more and more that there is MORE shown, MORE language, MORE everything. If you don't like that scenario, let's look at television. Two And A Half Men, for example. An extremely "racy" show where one of the men is a womanizing drunk who sleeps with many, many women and is proud of it, even tutoring his 13 year old nephew on one occasion on the nuances of getting laid for the first time. It was a show that started about 5 years ago. It was on at 9 or 9:30, the accepted time networks aired shows of that nature because that's when most teens (in middle school, let's say) should be heading to bed for school the next day. NOW, it's on in syndication . . . in the middle of the day. Charlie is the cool guy (the womanizing drunk) and Alan is his nerdy brother and half the time HE'S trying to get laid. So you tell me kids don't see that, shown in the afternoon, and think that it's NOT okay? Really? And on top of that you think sex ed is going to significantly REDUCE the urges of teenagers? I mean . . . c'mon. I was a stupid teen myself. And there were times I didn't have protection, but dammit there was a naked woman in front me and (in my mind) who KNOWS when that opportunity might present itself again?

If you STILL don't like that scenario, let's take the boom of internet porn over the last eight years. Google searches, "free sites", pop-up ads. All of this stuff bombarding kids who are on the internet without supervision (the parental responsibility again) or proper filters. Do you think THOSE sites offer adequate sex ed? Are THOSE people using protection? You think THAT has no effect? Sure, you say you've seen plenty of it, but at 12 or 13, how accessible was it? What time-frame are we talking about here? I'll bet you it's FAR MORE accessible now to these kids than it was to you. Tell me we're more prudish in that instance.

**EDIT** Forgot to add about "sexting". I've got kids and you don't so I'll assume you don't really know what that term means. It's not sending each other pictures of a scantilly clad Britney Spears (although in MILD cases, it could be). It's naked pictures of models and most often of themselves to their boy/girlfriends. With or without sex ed, that's gonna have a HUGE effect on kids.

So, please . . . tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that these things, in ever-increasing amounts, would have no effect on children whatsoever, with or without sex ed.

When I get time I'll be looking some stuff up to show you about the steep rise in internet porn sites and their availability to youth. Hopefully, I can find studies I used to know about how kids are getting addicted to porn at young

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:23 PM

I gotta say, I agree that the amount and graphic nature of sexual images that kids have access to these days is probably greater than it was even a few years ago.

At the same time, I don't think most kids would just try it out for the hell of it if there wasn't a social expectation for them to have sex, and have it early, and I think this has been going on for longer than just the recent increased availability of sexual images.

I used to watch porn with friends at unsupervised sleepovers when we were 13, yet we didn't have sex before the age of 16, all of us. Because it wasn't the culture of our social group.

My cousin, on the other hand, followed her peer group and was sexually active from 14 on.

Culturally, sex is glamorized as a goal in and of itself. It has fulfillment and status attached to it. That's already a cultural pressure to have sex, and the more uncertain and unfulfilled, the more drawn to sex a kid is going to be, I figure, and these days, a lot of kids are unhappy and stressed.

It's a combination of many things.

In spite of all the hissing and name-calling in this thread, I don't think anyone actually disagrees that school-based sex ed would be not a bad idea, considering the circumstances, no matter its causes, right?

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:20 PM

Quote:
In spite of all the hissing and name-calling in this thread, I don't think anyone actually disagrees that school-based sex ed would be not a bad idea, considering the circumstances, no matter its causes, right?

Heck no, besides which, they oughta put it right there in science and biology where it belongs instead of working around it's artificial removal.

And in relation to what I posted before, they also oughta bring back home-ec and/or some variation on the necessary skills to live on ones own as an elective.

I took home-ec, way back when it was seriously "un-cool" for a guy to do so, and not only was it far more useful than I ever thought it would be, giving me one hell of a head start - umm

it also did wonders for my popularity with the fairer sex, although rumors thereof were greatly exaggerated.

How many teens these days do you see actually doing a price/volume/quality comparison when helping their folks pick out groceries - IF they even go ?

-F

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:31 PM

Short on time today, so only a couple quick notes...

Quote:
And on top of that you think sex ed is going to significantly REDUCE the urges of teenagers?

HELL FREAKING NO!!!! Short of feeding your teenage son saltpeter, I don't think there IS a way to significantly REDUCE the urges of teenagers. What you CAN do is educate them about those urges. You can explain that it's natural, they're not freaks or "sinners", they're human beings, just like everyone else out there. You can tell them that it's not "evil" to act on those urges in a consensual manner when the time is right, as long as they've got education and protection on their side.

Quote:
I was a stupid teen myself. And there were times I didn't have protection, but dammit there was a naked woman in front me and (in my mind) who KNOWS when that opportunity might present itself again?

So you're admitting that abstinence didn't work? "Just say no" didn't help? Hasn't that rather been the point many of us have been making throughout this entire discussion?

Quote:
**EDIT** Forgot to add about "sexting". I've got kids and you don't so I'll assume you don't really know what that term means. It's not sending each other pictures of a scantilly clad Britney Spears (although in MILD cases, it could be). It's naked pictures of models and most often of themselves to their boy/girlfriends. With or without sex ed, that's gonna have a HUGE effect on kids.

Thanks for being extra-patronizing. Since I don't have children, I'm sure I couldn't possibly know anything about current events. Who's this "Britney" people keep talking about, anyway?

Yes, I'm aware of what "sexting" is. Believe it or not, I actually DO get the news, and from more than a few sources.

In the old days, we needed a Polaroid camera to do things like "sexting" pictures of ourselves or our partners in the buff. Now all it takes is a phone, and Polaroid is going kaputt. Go figure...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

RIPWASH

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
I was a stupid teen myself. And there were times I didn't have protection, but dammit there was a naked woman in front me and (in my mind) who KNOWS when that opportunity might present itself again?

So you're admitting that abstinence didn't work? "Just say no" didn't help? Hasn't that rather been the point many of us have been making throughout this entire discussion?

That's exactly what I'm saying. But I'm also saying that I don't think sex ed would have helped much either. I think part of the problem here is that you and Rue are overlooking what BDN and I are saying - which is that there are other factors involved than just the Bush policy which is what Rue started this whole thread with.

Quote:
Quote:
**EDIT** Forgot to add about "sexting". I've got kids and you don't so I'll assume you don't really know what that term means. It's not sending each other pictures of a scantilly clad Britney Spears (although in MILD cases, it could be). It's naked pictures of models and most often of themselves to their boy/girlfriends. With or without sex ed, that's gonna have a HUGE effect on kids.

Thanks for being extra-patronizing. Since I don't have children, I'm sure I couldn't possibly know anything about current events. Who's this "Britney" people keep talking about, anyway?

Yes, I'm aware of what "sexting" is. Believe it or not, I actually DO get the news, and from more than a few sources.

Sorry, Kwicko. Patronizing was not my intent. Sorry you took it that way. I just didn't know how much you may or may not know about it, so I just laid it out on the line to avoid any potential back and forth.

[Obama voice] Let me be clear [/Obama voice]

It's not that I was arguing with the premise of the source. Did that stuff rise during the Bush Adminstration? Yes. Was it primarily because of the Bush Adminstrations's policy? I don't think so. There are numerous other factors to take into consideration as to "why." I would even go so far as to say the numbers will be higher in 4 years . . . but don't hold me to that. It's just a gut feeling.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:25 PM

Quote:
I would even go so far as to say the numbers will be higher in 4 years . . . but don't hold me to that. It's just a gut feeling.

Care to put any money on it?

RIPWASH

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:25 PM

One dollah!!!

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:38 PM

Quote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. But I'm also saying that I don't think sex ed would have helped much either. I think part of the problem here is that you and Rue are overlooking what BDN and I are saying - which is that there are other factors involved than just the Bush policy which is what Rue started this whole thread with.

And I think YOU misunderstand what *I* am saying.

Saying that sex-ed wouldn't have helped "much" is a cop-out. It's making an excuse for not doing something which would have helped. Either the issue of teen pregnancy, AIDS, and STDs is a problem worth addressing, or you're just paying lip-service to it to make yourself feel better. If it's a real problem worth addressing, why throw out comprehensive sex education curricula simply on the basis that you don't think they'll "help much". How many lives do you consider "much", anyway?

Sex-ed is the ONE area where you actually CAN make a real difference and a real impact. You can complain about Britney and sexting all day long, you can argue about whether or not there's too much access to explicit imagery through TV, movies, and the internet 'til you're blue in the face, but when it comes to education, YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY MAKE SURE THAT YOUR TEENS ARE ABLE TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS AVAILABLE TO THEM, and you're saying that that won't help much, so why bother?

Now, why do we need to do this as part of the public education curriculum? Simple: because you apparently can't rely on parents to do it on their own. It would be ideal if they would, but a great many (I'd wager *most*) parents simply WILL NOT talk frankly and honestly with their children about sex.

That's why I wrote the first reply I posted in this thread - because that's pretty much the way it was taught to most of the people I grew up with, because they had uptight parents who raised uptight kids. And they were dead set against having ANY kind of sex-ed class taught to their kids in school. The thinking is, if you teach them how, that's all they're going to do.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
One dollah!!!

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

You're on!

And thanks for maintaining your sense of humor, even when all others seem to have lost theirs...

RIPWASH

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:00 PM

One quick note - the reference to sex ed not helping much was more of a "not helped ME much."

I don't disagree with what you're saying, Kwicko. Not in the least. I just think it's a touchy subject that needs to be more thought out and have more parental involvement. I also DO think that abstinence should be part of any sex education program. After all, it's 100% effective, right?

My only issue through this whole process is that Rue, by her initial post, was referencing a direct correlation between Bush era policies and the rise in numbers. BDN and I disagreed that it was ALL Bush's fault, made other assesments in addition to that theory, and we got nasty responses.

I guess all I'm looking for is SOME agreement with what I've been saying. Just a little bit. Can't ya give me that? I agreed with you to an extent, can't you do the same for me ol' buddy, ol' pal?

I'm all for keeping a sense of humor, Kwick. Life's too short for gettin' all mean and crotchety at every little thing. At least I don't think I lost my temper when I was gettin' "yelled" at.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:49 PM

Personally *I* think they ought to make the Trojan Man a national hero!

When you think about the amount of unplanned pregnancies, STD infections and the like that could possibly be attributed to him, doesn't he deserve it ?

Just for reference, after getting the bullshit 40minute lecture, and watching one classmate get struck with an STD, and another deliberately and maliciously trapped via pregnancy/shotgun wedding into a VERY exploitive marriage by a girl from another school preying on his ignorance...

I did the only thing that made sense - broke all convention and several laws in order to obtain a proper education on my own, which took more time and effort given the lack of any outside assistance in sorting the facts from the bullshit.

And because of that education, happened to take quite a bit of crap from my fellow students that year and the one after cause it was "un-cool" to suit up before diving - hell with that, *I* never bagged an STD or caused an unplanned pregnancy, and while not as bad as rumor made me out to be, it ain't like I was a moral paragon neither.

Oh yeah, and I had to steal the damn rubbers, besides, just so you know - netting me the unfortunate but amusing nickname "Lord Latex" from the idiots who thought suiting up was for pansies.

You can't STOP the flood of teens hormones and impulses, no more than a sidewalk can stop a tree root, and every effort you make to try just ensures they lose respect for you and your entire society, especially when that society glorifies yet forbids, playing a torturous sort of peekaboo, much like holding a nice juicy steak juuuust out of the reach of a starving man, that's an act of cruelty to them which we seem not to notice cause we consider them unpeople, subhuman, and lesser beings.

We need to acknowledge them as people, treat them as human beings, and educate them while showing by example how to mitigate and leash those impulses responsibly - telling them won't do shit given how often we lie to them about every bloody thing else, they will ONLY accept personal example from folks they respect.

And one could start by winning that respect in the first place by maybe treating them as fellow human beings instead of subhumans below the level of housepets, yes ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:02 PM

Mebbe we should tell teens about masturbation too. I know it's not "cool" for anyone to admit to anything less than full-on sex, but I'll bet it's saved many teens from insanity.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:49 PM

*insert clip of The infamous Greaseman's "six minute workout" here*

PHOENIXROSE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
momma couldn't overcome her ownership reflexes long enough for her brain to work...

That's sad as hell, Frem. I'm right there with you being annoyed at the people who treat their children as property. I'm fortunate to have the parents I had, who always answered my questions (sometimes before I even asked them) and encouraged me to be my own person. I learned to drive as early as possible, and it was wonderful that I had a car at sixteen and could get myself places, but I paid for the gas and the insurance on it, because that's part of being responsible. I've had to earn my own money and eventually help pay the mortgage if I wanted to stick around while I was going to school and figuring out what to do with myself.
Basically, they've never gotten in my way, and I look around at the world and find myself amazed at how rare that is. And you'd think that some of those kids would remember how it felt to be treated as non-people and not be allowed to do anything until they hit the somehow-magical age of 18, and then not know what they were getting into. The fact that this lack of knowledge is pointed at with the outcry of "See! Kids are irresponsible! They can't be trusted! That's why I kept such a close eye on junior for all those years!" is just crazy to me. The fact that the kids who are hearing this believe it because they're screwing up from lack of knowledge and guidance, and so they apparently pass the dysfunction on to the next generation, is what really sickens me.
Like I said, I had it pretty good, but I do remember some things I wish hadn't been inflicted on me, and it's my plan to not inflict that on any offspring I might eventually have. My mom always held the notion that she would teach me everything she could, because by my mid-teens I would not only need it, but would be out of her control. I think she was absolutely right. My dad wasn't quite as willing to accept that I would do as I pleased once I had a car, and all the lessons he'd imparted when I was twelve would just have to be sufficient. Which, by the way, they were. I knew a lot about the world, and I avoided a lot of bad decisions. Certainly not all, but I'd say the worst of it.
I was educated. I was respected. I was given my freedom. I didn't have sex until I was nineteen, and I've never gotten pregnant or infected with an STD. My parents didn't just tell me to wait til I was married and leave it at that. Marriage didn't enter the conversation at all, actually. Maybe because they were Buddhists and didn't have some of that Christian baggage, or maybe they just recognized that two people can be in love without signing anything. Anyway, they taught me sex was special with reasons. They said it was an emotional experience, a physical manifestation of love, and that I should be ready and be in love because it would have a profound effect on me. They weren't squeamish about human chemistry, and the fact that I'd want sex, and they were able to communicate that there was more to it than just want.
Anyway, I've realized how lucky I've been, that my parents never considered me their property, and were mostly thrilled when I could take care of myself and they didn't have to worry all the time about me being okay. They liked seeing who I was, getting to know me as a person. I always thought that would be fairly widespread. I mean, who wants to worry all the time? Who wants to have more responsibility than they really need to? It's hard enough keeping your own life on track, without fretting all the time about someone who's perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. You raise a child, you set them on their track, teach them what you can, and realize when it's going to be out of your hands. Seems like that's the way it should go. I just figured it would, for the most part. But it doesn't. I've seen so many attitudes about how untrustworthy a teen is, and people sheltering their children right out of the house and into some sticky situations. It's crazy. Children need to make so

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:31 PM

Quote:
I also DO think that abstinence should be part of any sex education program. After all, it's 100% effective, right?

Not if you believe in your bible, it ain't.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Mebbe we should tell teens about masturbation too. I know it's not "cool" for anyone to admit to anything less than full-on sex, but I'll bet it's saved many teens from insanity.

Not to mention blindness!

Oh... wait.

Never mind. I couldn't quite see what you wrote!

KWICKO

Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
One quick note - the reference to sex ed not helping much was more of a "not helped ME much."

Well, if it's any consolation, it probably didn't help ME all that much, either. Now if they'd gone over things like how to locate a g-spot and what women really want, we might have gotten somewhere...

Quote:

I don't disagree with what you're saying, Kwicko. Not in the least. I just think it's a touchy subject that needs to be more thought out and have more parental involvement. I also DO think that abstinence should be part of any sex education program. After all, it's 100% effective, right?

SHOULD abstinence be part of sex ed? Probably. But I think it's unrealistic to think that it should be the BIGGEST part. Sure, it's preferable, but it's not very realistic. How'd it work for you?

Quote:

My only issue through this whole process is that Rue, by her initial post, was referencing a direct correlation between Bush era policies and the rise in numbers. BDN and I disagreed that it was ALL Bush's fault, made other assesments in addition to that theory, and we got nasty responses.

I *DO* think there's a correlation, but I don't think I ever maintained that it was ALL Bush's fault. And I don't think I ever gave you a particularly nasty response.

Quote:

I guess all I'm looking for is SOME agreement with what I've been saying. Just a little bit. Can't ya give me that? I agreed with you to an extent, can't you do the same for me ol' buddy, ol' pal?

Oh, I can agree that it's a problem, all right. That's kind of what we've been discussing - WHY it's a growing problem. That's the bone of contention, it seems.

Quote:

I'm all for keeping a sense of humor, Kwick. Life's too short for gettin' all mean and crotchety at every little thing. At least I don't think I lost my temper when I was gettin' "yelled" at.

Nope, you didn't. Way I conjure it, the quickest way to find solutions is if we - both sides, ALL sides - can at least find some common ground to laugh at. If you can laugh with someone, you can begin to relate to them. From that solutions will follow.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

SIGNYM

Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:30 PM

Quote:
Not to mention blindness!
Oh... wait.
Never mind. I couldn't quite see what you wrote!

I would have replied quicker but the hair on my palms keeps me from using my mouse effectively.

RIPWASH

Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I don't think I ever gave you a particularly nasty response.

Oh no, no. You were fine with me. I was speaking more in terms of how the person who started the thread got particularly nasty with me. I think it was you and BDN who were gettin' a little intense with each other

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RIPWASH

Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Not to mention blindness!
Oh... wait.
Never mind. I couldn't quite see what you wrote!
I would have replied quicker but the hair on my palms keeps me from using my mouse effectively.

TMI!!!!! TMI!!!!!!

AAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!!

Too funny.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, July 24, 2009 12:08 AM

Phoenixrose ?

Bout all I can really say to that is Amen!

I will point out one more of the logical fallacies of childrearing though.

As I said, we adults lie to them about just about everything, but here's one most people never think through - how exactly are they supposed to learn from OUR failures if we never dare ADMIT them to our kids ?

My sister did that, she lied through her teeth to them about her own conduct in this respect, as if they couldn't see right through it, as if they couldn't COUNT ?
I mean, where did THEY come from, mail-order ?

When I had that talk with em, I rather firmly disabused them of the notion that their mother was the moral paragon she claimed to be, having been her backup and lookout for more than one boyfriends parents, and her source of condoms for that matter, which if she had the bloody sense to keep using after the death of our only remaining guardian shattered our family, she would have had those children later and been better prepared for it when she did!

I can get away with that, too - see, I am as much her parent as her brother, and when it comes to everything but the most extreme sticking point, as relates to childrearing, she will defer to my judgment even if it's in opposition to her own, but only if I am THERE, alas.

My situation was a bit different from yours, PR - from as long as I can remember, I was my own person and damn the torpedoes, and after stabbing my father with a kitchen knife for hitting mom when I was five, her efforts to support our household meant dealing with the lack of her presence, and I was latchkey kid to complete parody, taking on the mantle of adulthood way too early and running the household in her absence, as well as raising my sister, and trying to make my way in a society that disgusted me and seemed to have no place for me - I've never, EVER forgotten that mistreatment simply for the sake of being young because it was a non-stop thorn in my side, having all the responsibilities of an adult shoved on me but still considered subhuman.

And because of that, my capacity and tendency for violence far beyond the norm for that age group if provoked in any way, and too damn much on my mind for the usually more petty concerns of teenagedom, I had little or nothing in common with my peers, whom I personally considered a pack of juvenile feckless morons, only later learning how our social concept of childrearing completely stunted them, and yet I had little or nothing in common with the adults either, considering them and their monstrous, abusive society to be naught more than a nightmare behind a thin tissue of lies they spend their entire lives reinforcing so they can live with their own actions within it.

And I chose not to play ball, especially since most of the time I *DID* run afoul of their "rules" it was over asinine stuff like self-education about sex, trying to dodge truant officers so I could get to work, cause I had that damn GED when I was sixteen and "the law" said I had to go to high school till I was eighteen, and various other "know your place, peon!" kind of bullshit.

And when I found myself without a legal guardian, what with a family that hated and (I learned later) feared me, unwanted, unwelcome, and penniless in the bottom of southwest baltimores nastiest ghetto, a certain amount of personal arrogance was necessary for survival, and yet despite all the other horrors of my past, the one that cuts most keenly is the lack of respect our society has for teens.

I ain't never, EVER forgettin it, it's too much of whom I am, the person I became, to ever for a moment do so.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, July 24, 2009 12:10 AM

*just HAS to run with this ball*

Quote:
I would have replied quicker but the hair on my palms keeps me from using my mouse effectively.

Siggy's a WOOKIE ?!!

-F

SIGNYM

Friday, July 24, 2009 1:14 AM

WRRAAAAAAAWRR!!!!!

RIPWASH

Friday, July 24, 2009 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
I also DO think that abstinence should be part of any sex education program. After all, it's 100% effective, right?

Not if you believe in your bible, it ain't.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

Oh SURE!! Call me out on that ONE time!

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE