They should probably do that with woman's stomachs (for stretch marks) and vaginas (before and after)......

One of the best ways to put a stop to your sex life is waking up to a screaming baby! Schools need to make sure there's "No Child Left Behind" because of not having comprehensive age-appropriate sex ed......

Best. Method. Ever.

When I was 13, my mom and dad took me to one of their final Lamaze classes before my baby sister was born. There was a graphic video of a birth. Boys had cooties for a long time after that.

Such fear tactics may well work for younger ages (~10-13yrs), but at some point you have to talk to teenagers like the adults they will soon become.

I have always advocated the idea that instead of teaching old-fashioned ideas like "wait until marriage" we should be telling teenagers to simply wait until they are adults to make adult decisions. From that standpoint it then make sense to give comprehensive education about contraceptives, preparing them for their adult lives.

Sadly though, many want an abstinence only curriculum. The reasoning is one of nostalgia for earlier eras when a 15-16 year old girl would get knocked up and subsequently married, keeping her from going to college and becoming a feminist or a lesbian.

AtomicZeppelinMan - I totally agree with you about teaching to wait until these young teens are adults and can make semi-adult decisions. My parents taught me to wait until i was old enough and think it through so that when i felt i was ready i could be smart and safe about it. I have friends who, in High School, never got that kind of treatment/education and ended up not purchasing contraceptives because they were afraid of the consequences if they were caught with the contraceptives, they ended up having kids at young ages.

I agree that teens need to be taught about sex, I am just not sure that the public school system is the appropriate place. When and what to teach really should be at the discretion of the parents. This is the reason that most public schools that do have sex education classes allow the parents to opt out their children from the classes. To much about sex education is tied up in a persons religious beliefs. To force a catholic student to learn about contraception when it goes against their religion, no matter how outdated people feel that religious belief is in today's society, seems to cross a line that I do not think should be crossed. This is different than the teaching of evolution which is a matter of science. Whether or not to use contraception is not a scientific issue, it is on of a persons individual moral and ethical values. I know that to many my views on this may seem outdated, but I feel that it really should fall to the parents to educate their children on a topic such as this. When I went to school there was no sex education in the public schools and it was my parents who talked to me about the subject. This was the way it was for many generations and I see no reason it needs to be any different now. And for the record, I am not a catholic and in fact am not even of a christian faith.

I agree that teens need to be taught about sex, I am just not sure that the public school system is the appropriate place.

The problem is that it's information EVERY kid needs, and it's irresponsible not to use the one avenue that reaches every kid (counting accredited private schools and home-schooling, which needs, itself, to be accredited).

To[o] much about sex education is tied up in a person[']s religious beliefs.

I agree that it's too much, but I strongly disagree that just because people have a problem with real-world facts for religious reasons, that's sufficient justification not to teach those facts.

To force a [C]atholic student to learn about contraception when it goes against their religion, no matter how outdated people feel that religious belief is in today's society, seems to cross a line that I do not think should be crossed. This is different [from] the teaching of evolution[,] which is a matter of science.

Birth control IS a matter of science. Whether it's right or wrong? THAT is something that should be addressed in the home if desired. But the fact that it exists, and the basics of how it works - those are objective, empirical facts that we owe each and every child in our society the duty to teach.

Whether or not to use contraception is not a scientific issue, it is [one] of a person[']s individual moral and ethical values.

And it is also entirely separate from the factual discussion of what birth control is and how it works.

I don't think the correlation is between religion and teen pregnancy, I think it's between education and teen pregnancy. While it's true that the "worst offender" states are more religious, they're also typically lower on educational standards than the rest of the nation.

Utah and Idaho, for example, are two very religious states that have a much lower than average teen pregnancy rate. Utah, #6 on the list of states for lowest rates, is often billed as the most religious and most conservative state in the Union. However, the educational standards both there and in Idaho (#13) are very high, with test scores among the highest in the nation. Also, Mormons make up the largest religious body in both states, which faith teaches strict abstinence before marriage.

Here's the link for the list I'm giving stats from, in case you want to reference it:

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/national-data/pdf/STBYST05_Preg%20Only.pdf

While I agree that the "morality" associated with sex should be taught at home, if sex ed is going to be taught in the school, then you need to give them all the information, not just some of it.

Kids aren't as stupid as parents pretend, nor as innocent.

In the 70's when I was attended a private (church run) non-profit boarding school, we were taught about STD's (got to love those gross pictures) but not how you got those STD's.

Written in the school code of conduct, we weren't allowed to walk across campus with a member of the opposite sex, unless a faculty member was present with us (and it was an expellable offense to be caught doing so). The girl's dormitory had locks AND alarms on the doors and windows. The doors and windows were locked at night, and the alarms were turned on.

The most funny.....we were taught that holding hands leads to kissing, kissing leads to hugging, hugging leads to petting, and petting leads to babies (notice, no mention of sex). The joke on campus was, wear gloves when holding hands, to prevent having babies. We weren't stupid. We knew what was up.

Dave in NM I agree with you, and would add that teaching about birth control is one about health. Some natural consequences of not using birth control can be life long or life ending.

I agree that parents should be talking to their children about sex, but sadly this doesn't always happen in time, and they learn about it on the playground, or locker room. The school's job is to teach facts, it's the parents job to teach their views on morality.

Why the hell woulddyou think that we need birth control in sex ed classes or icky pictures of STD's

We have Bristol !!!!

Of course that wasn't the only thing we did in class, it was just the most memorable. We had a balance of learning about different STDs, HIV and AIDS, as well as different methods of contraception and how effective they were. It was a good program- we came through it completely knowledgable about risk factors of unprotected sex and how best to keep ourselves safe. Those pictures, though, were the best teaching tool to really wake kids up to the possible dangers of unproteted relations.

In hs we had sex ed and there wasnt much information, just how babies are made. Some of the info i got were from my fellow teens then i heard about planed parent hood goggled the site and found out about all the information i was missing. I believe student should be taught sex ed, prevention, abortion, pregnancies, etc. maybe even bring in a teen mom who has had a kid to see what life is really like that it's not easy to have a baby and be a free teen, about abortion adoption also about peer pressure from friends and boys. In the end teach them about the realities of sex and how it can change your life in and out of school. So teens know or have an idea of what to expect. Maybe if they had the proper info theyd be better able to make informed decisions when it comes to sex. Face it sex in not a subject most parents feel comfortable talking about to their kids, and now that kids in middle school are starting to have sex the sooner the better

When my now-30's daughter was 14, we ended a weekend together (yep, Daddy's bi-monthly visit) in her driveway having a little chat.

It began with her asking, "Daddy, if I got pregnant, would you kill me?" In this context, "kill" did not mean death, of course, just the kind of parental response that might make dying preferable to the misery of BIG TROUBLE.

I sat back and answered, "No, dear, I wouldn't. BUT - if you get pregnant, I'll be pretty mad at you for being stupid when it isn't necessary."

And then we sat in the front seat and talked for about another two hours. Gist of the chat:

• Sex is wonderful - but it is not worth dying for (AIDS and STDs)
• At 14, she's not old enough to make smart decisions about sex and she doesn't need to allow any boy to talk her into it when she doesn't want to
• When she does decide, she'll be on her own in the decision - neither her mom nor I will be around ... so we both want her to have all the information she can get about making such an important decision on her own
• We trust her to make a good decision, and here are generally the things she should consider .... then some values and psychology as well as practical details followed
• above all, birth control is an important consideration - she doesn't need spend what should be her youth and early adulthood being a child raising a child
• If she decides to engage in sexual activity and her mother won't help with birth control, call me immediately and I'll arrange it (implicit here is that if I get this call next week, we'll be talking more immediately)
• There are more than one good reason to insist on condoms and several also not to rely upon them alone (this required explaining condoms and effectiveness against pregnancy)

She had received sex education at her church-operated middle school and in her first year of public high school - with virtually nothing said about condoms or birth control. I'm certain her question was intended to bring on the kind of chat we had.

One day when she was in college, she called me up to remind me of our chat, and suprisingly, thank me. She said it made her feel safe, loved, and gave her a helpful sense of direction. And she then said, "I thought a lot about you before I made my decision. Thanks again, you WERE there at the time." Ah. Well, we didn't really say much more on that topic, but I got the message.

Now, however, I'm wondering. She could stop birth control any day now and I'd love to be Grandad. But that's surely off-topic, and besides, it's the business only of my daughter and her fine husband.

Kids absolutely need ALL the information at school. But they also need to feel secure and engaged with their parents on this essential life subject.

John A. You handled that beautifully. You conveyed what you want for your daughter (to wait for sex), but were open and honest with her all while making her feel like she had someone there for her. My parents did the same for me - I graduated high school a virgin; yet, several of my classmates, whose parents told them nothing (or worse made them feel dirty for even asking a question), ended up pregnant. I have also told my parents thank you for the way they handled it.

And absolutely necessary to teach these things in the home, too, and not rely exclusively on the school.

My first-grader knows the basics. In fact, after some surprisingly incisive questions, he knows a bit more than that. Always said there wasn't a question in the world I wouldn't answer if my kids asked.

I agree. Dave in NM, like your first grader, my first grader knows the basics. If the kid asks questions, they deserve an honest answer.

I was mowing the grass when my 8 year old daughter came up to me and ask “what is sex” I thought, she old enough to ask, then she deserve an honest answer and explain the birds and bees. When I asked what made her ask; she replied “mom told me to tell you dinner will be ready in a sec”. LOL

LOL - yeah, it's always a good idea to gauge what your kid is really asking. That reminds me of a story I heard...a 5 year old asked his very pregnant mom "Where did I come from?". She took a deep breath, and explained how babies are made, thinking he was curious because she was so visibly pregnant. He kind of made a face and said "Oh, Mike came from Rochester."

With my kids, we were preparing for our first road trip, just the three of us, following their mom's, er, tendering her resignation from the family. I said, "guys, I've always had a co-driver to keep me awake before, but this time, that's you. But I'll tell you what. Once we're on the road, [lean in conspiratorially] I'll answer [pause] any question [quieter] you ask me." Their eyes widened, and my nine-year-old daughter breathed, "even what the F-word means?!?"

Turned out to be a fantastic conversation, and they asked really smart follow-ups.

Turned out to be a fantastic conversation, and they asked really smart follow-ups.

Awesome story! I've been giving my kids books and sort of...incidental information as it comes up - stuff on TV or in movies we watch, particularly if it's stupid, unsafe behavior or any sort of -ism (racism, sexism, etc) I think I should point out. As for swearing, I'm afraid they've been pretty inured to it over the years...I work in the construction field. My 13yo son swears too much now and has finally realized that, no, it's not actually shocking or even a very good way to describe something when you limit yourself to so few words. Oddly enough, my 9yo daughter doesn't swear at all.

I agree.

I believe that it is always better to be hands on.

Vince-545056 wrote "And now Delaware senate candidate Christine O'Donnell wants to go on a crusade to keep them from masturbating as well."

The anti-masturbation movements in the late 1800's/early 1900's was the start of the circumcision practice in the US. One wonders why the US circumcision rate peaked in the 1960's at about 90% and has fallen to 33% in 2010.

Circumcision was linked to theories about transmission of disease between sex partners and the supposed ill effects of smegma. As hospital births became more and more prevalent, so did the incidence of circumcision. Several states made it mandatory. So by the 1960's it was the accepted practice based on information as much as 100 years out of date. Then people began to question it and many opted not to have their sons circumcised. But it also started a good bit of research and virtually all of it has shown that the risks of STD's are significantly less for circumcised males. So rates are back on the rise.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to go cutting on it before you find out how big it's gonna be!

I find the scarring of circumsized penis revolting. It's unnatural.

Not to mention that un-circumsized penis' look revolting

Good thing for you, if you're a woman, that our culture doesn't convince us to unnecessarily hack parts off of female genitalia because it "looks revolting".

As someone who lives in a Bible Belt state, you are more right than you know. Beginning in middle school when "sex ed" is taught, middle schoolers in my daughter's school district are enrolled in "abstinence only" education. I opted out of this ridiculous program for my daughter, not the only person mind you, and she went to the library while the class was "taught." This program consisted of a 3 page questionnaire asking if you were already sexually active, if so how many times, if you had oral sex, blah, blah, blah. By the time she got to high school, you saw the results of the "abstinence only" education program. Pregnant bellies everywhere.

Tony Crago wrote "he funny thing is that the birth rate in unwed monthers and the divorce rates are higher in states where the religious right has the most influence."

This is precisely why these populations turn to religion. The unstable socioeconomic environment creates the religious following and not the other way around.

Not sure if this is true. I have my daughter in church, BUT I teach her proper sex education. Down in the wool Baptists, the main religion here, don't drink, dance, attend Church when the doors are open (at least 3 times per week), and some diehard women don't wear pants or makeup. I can't see them letting Precious hear about penises, orgasms and condoms.

And unfortunately it becomes self-perpetuating, since the epidemic of illegitimate births and multiple births among the Religious Right serves to increase their numbers, and hence the power of their church/denomination within the context of a democratic society. And hence more political pressure for a Neanderthal approach to sex education.

...not to mention that most religions like to keep the women folk subservient and obedient to the men folks every desire.

This is precisely why these populations turn to religion. The unstable socioeconomic environment creates the religious following and not the other way around.

And religion prevents proper sex education, so more teens are having babies, preventing them from continuing an education that would enable them to break the cycle of poverty. I thought that religion was supposed to be the answer to, not the cause of, problems.

I thought that religion was supposed to be the answer to, not the cause of, problems.

Guess it's better to be set straight on that one late than never.

I don't think the correlation is between religion and teen pregnancy, I think it's between education and teen pregnancy. While it's true that the "worst offender" states are more religious, they're also typically lower on educational standards than the rest of the nation.

Utah and Idaho, for example, are two very religious states that have a much lower than average teen pregnancy rate. Utah, #6 on the list of states for lowest rates, is often billed as the most religious and most conservative state in the Union. However, the educational standards both there and in Idaho (#13) are very high, with test scores among the highest in the nation. Also, Mormons make up the largest religious body in both states, which faith teaches strict abstinence before marriage.

Here's the link for the list I'm giving stats from, in case you want to reference it:

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/national-data/pdf/STBYST05_Preg%20Only.pdf

Along with films and a glossary of terms such as rimming, poopnoodle etc.

Young men should also be taught abortion tactics including methods to explain that they are unwilling fathers and should not be expected to act as fathers when they are treated as sperm donors with wallets. Young men should not be forced into fatherhood simply because a young woman wants a doll to play with. Young men should also be taught the Woman Racket in which women offer short term pleasure for a man primarily to gain an income stream for her and *her* (but not his) child. Young men should also be taught to demand a DNA paternity test at birth to confirm paternity instead of waiting later.

How is a young man "forced" into fatherhood. Stupid and horny I understand, but it takes two for babies. He knocks up a girl, he's responsible.

... including methods to explain that they are unwilling fathers ...

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

If these "unwilling fathers" had been taught the proper use of a condom, so many of them wouldn't be facing fatherhood.

Vincent.....what's the income stream in high school? 17% of his $20.00 per week allowance, yeah that'd be worth throwing my future away.......although it'd be more than my ex-husband paid!

@ Kj....ROFLMAO!!!

Vincent Denali-

Young men should also be taught abortion tactics including methods to explain that they are unwilling fathers and should not be expected to act as fathers when they are treated as sperm donors with wallets. Young men should not be forced into fatherhood simply because a young woman wants a doll to play with.

Wow. Just...wow. Yes, there are women like this out there, but you know what the best protection against this scenario is? Putting on a condom. This has got to be one of the more ignorant things I've heard. How can you portray a man as a victim when he provided the sperm to make the baby? It goes two ways, brotha.

Young men should also be taught the Woman Racket in which women offer short term pleasure for a man primarily to gain an income stream for her and *her* (but not his) child.

Okay, this cracks me up. Maybe if the man in this scenario decides to think with something other than the organ between his legs, he'll realize that if he wants to pay for sex, he'll get a prostitute. If you don't care about the woman you're with and you just want to use her for sex, you get what's coming to you. Unbelievable...

For the record, not all women are interested in using a baby to coerce a man into staying with them and paying their bills...just like not all men are idiotic enough to not protect themselves if they don't completely trust the woman they're with. ;)

Hope......Loved it.....

Shanno......I do my best to show the foolishness of some thinking.....or lack thereof.....

Yes--the attitude that sex is primarily the result of pressure from the horny male on the pure and unwilling female is such malarkey that high school students themselves laugh at it. I was fortunate enough to work in a retail outlet that employed many high school students. I found them far more well-informed that I had been in my high school years. In fact, I would suggest that sex education classes be run by the kids and that the parents be made to attend. They (the parents) would probably learn a whole lot more than the students. Of course in areas where the predominant religious teaching is one that relegates women to baby-producing machines at the authority of the husband there isn't going to be a lot of encouragement for sex education that assigns equal responsibility to both male and female participants in sexual decisions. Making it mandatory won't work, either. School boards are locally apointed or elected, and so are going to be agents of the predominant cultural values. Good luck to all you young adults who insist on learning the very important facts about sexual behaviour and reproduction. Try to educate your parents--they need it.

I think the most depressing thing about the "unwilling father"s sentiment is simply that the father has no say over the disposition of the pregnancy. I am pro-choice, but I find it very disconcerting that if a father wants the child, he has no recourse to prevent an abortion. However, if that father has no interest in the child, he again has no recourse to force the issue of an abortion, and is also required to provide for the child. The arguments that "it takes 2 to tango" or " if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" are largely moot, because the father has no say beyond what the mother chooses to give him. You cannot say that a woman can choose whether or not she wants to care for a child while at that same time saying that the father has to care for that child based on the choice of the mother, and then still consider them equal parties in the act. The choice itself is what causes the inequality of the situation, deferring to the will of the mother.

Examples:

Joe and Suzy have sex and get pregnant. Joe, wanting to fulfill his obligation to the child, wants to keep it (we'll say because he has strong religious values, but the reason is largely irrelevent). Suzy, on the other hand, has no interest in a child at this point, and opts to abort the pregnancy (against Joe's wshes). Joe cannot do anything within the law to prevent this situation from occurring, so he has no power in the outcome of this situation. (And as note, I am pro-choice, so this in itself does not concern me, but it does play into the next scenario.)

Billy and Jen have sex and get pregnant. Billy has no interest in a child at this point in his life, and discusses aborting the pregnancy with Jen. Jen (regardless of reason) opts not to abort the pregnancy, and then files a paternity suit to force Billy to provide financial assistance for the child she chose to give birth to. Billy has no way to prevent this situation from occurring, so he has no power in the outcome of this situation.

We have 2 scenarios where the choices were mutual up until the decision to complete or abort the pregnancy. Both the man and woman decided to hae sex, probably without protection since pregnancy was the result (but again, that's a moot point), but the final decision rests solely on the woman, with no ability for the man to exercise any control over the situation, but his future is decided by someone else. I fully support a woman's ability to choose in those situations. However, I also support the mans right to be absolved of the requirement to support a child that he did not want. The woman has that choice through either adoption or abortion, but the man is afforded no choice. We live by the whim of the woman, and are bound by law to support the child should she choose to keep it, where she can easily be rid of that obligation herself with a single choice.

I am not trying to make light of the decision to abort a pregnancy, or to place a child up for adoption, but simply to enlighten some on the disparity and inequality of the system that gives women the final say and leaves men at their mercy with no choice in the matter.

There should be a discussion about options in case of an unwanted pregnancy before either party engages in a sex act. If you don't know each other well enough to know what they're choices would be, perhaps you should wait to have sex......

The man needs to exercise his rights before there is a pregnancy. Since the laws are the way they are the best way for a man to avoid having to pay for an unwanted child, or get his child taken from him via abortion is to not have sex with a woman that he does not trust. Before you have sex with someone you should have a very clear understanding of how they would deal with a pregnancy, because no matter how careful two people are there is always some chance of a pregnancy when both people are capable of procreating. If the man did not take into consideration the possibility of the pregnancy and decide with the woman BEFORE having sex what would be the out come of a pregnancy then he is out of luck.

@ dragynlady

I concur completely. However, I also feel that people need to be more open about the idea of a "presexual arrangement" (similar to a prenuptial arrangement) that absolves the father of parental responsibilites of the result of the mother's decisions (providing that both parties agree that a child is not the desired result). Sadly, the people we often trust the most tend to be the least deserving of that trust. That's how I ended up with an ex-wife, a child, and enlisted in the Army... I was young and stupid, I admit, she lied to me about using birth control, we used condoms, but not 'every' time. When she got pregnant, she didn't expect me to stick around to take care of my responsibilites, so after a year of marriage she convinced me to join the military "for the benefits", and then used the opportunity to ask for a divorce when she could just hang up on me if I had a problem with it. I love my child, and can't think of what I would do if she were gone, but I got taken for a ride by a girl who just wanted a baby and a paycheck. I accepted the responsibility for my actions, but the fact is, I had no choice in the matter at that point. I realize that not every woman out there is trying to use a baby to get a steady paycheck, but your "understanding of how they would deal with a pregnancy" is something that needs to be put in writing, so that the father can exercise his right to be absolved of responsibility of care should the mother renege on that agreement.

HopeinAnguish: while I applaud your post I only hope you are not naive enough to think that a condom is a fool proof way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy or worse.

I'm not saying a condom is a great solution...the point was that if a man doesn't trust a woman, he should protect himself somehow...even if she says she's on birth control.

Or maybe...just maybe...if he doesn't trust her, he shouldn't be HAVING SEX WITH HER. Just a thought.

That is the point on post #5.2 . most young men don’t understand the extreme financial consequence until it is too late.

@RevLucifer

If you are old and savvy enough to request a pre-sexual agreement I would think you would be old enough to use a condom every time in addition to the bc that the woman is on. Then even if she is lying you are still somewhat protected. I know that when my partner and I were not ready for a child we used bc pills and condoms EVERY TIME, because abortion is not an option for us. I do agree that some kind of document might be a good idea, then no one gets forced into a child or abortion that they don't want - however like a pre-nup most people would say if you don't trust them enough to not have a legal document then maybe you should re-think the transaction.

disparity and inequality of the system that gives women the final say and leaves men at their mercy with no choice in the matter.

Grouch at nature then. The only "responsiblity" a male has in the birth of a baby is deposit of the sperm. That is his only input and the only time he has any right to choose anything in the matter.

yeah, let's continue to do the parents job......

doing it for almost everything else.

But just like that - "parents" in quotes, because they're invariably the worst at actually parenting (and the cycle begins anew).

cbali, I think the word you are looking for is "causality", so 'yes' would be the answer.

Atavist is right. It is no coincidence. Bush administration policies pushed funding for abstinence-only programs at the expense of factual information. Future generations will look back on this in the same bemused manner as we now regard "anti-drug" films like the 1930's "Reefer Madness."

Making sure the woman doesn't lie about her birth control and understanding that he will be raked across the coals should she decide to convince him he is the father of her child when it is actually the child of another man that makes a little less money.

After I got past the rudeness of your post....I busted up laughing because that is just about how it really is. I won't say the sex ed is un-necessary - but I would say it is mostly a joke when it is not dealt with factually and realistically.

You did it. I did it. And whole bunch of others did it. And we all did it just like they told us not to.

Making sure the woman doesn't lie about her birth control..

Why take the woman's word for it at all? Wear a condom.

Vince.....DNA doesn't care which guy makes more money and that's usually what paternity is based on........

kj... Vince is correct that a single man can use DNA to absolve himself of parental responsibilities, and I think that's right and fair. If the child isn't his, it doesn't matter how much money he makes, he isn't responsible. There is a difference, however, if the guy is married to the mother. In that case, he is the presumptive father, regardless of the DNA results.

Let me get this straight, your a virgin not by choice but because of your height? I'm not quite getting that.

Yea, that's about right. I'm not even allowed to finish introducing myself before they say "No, no, no, and no." So much for having game when you get rejected before you even finish pitching your game....

Maybe it's something in your approach?

Maybe it's something in your approach?

I was thinking it was more like...approaching the wrong ones.

@Baldman Do you use the word "bang"....I am thinking that is likely the problem.

sunnybunny:

"Maybe its something in your approach?"

I am shut down before I begin approaching. Girls are so good at this. The moment I tell her she's pretty or cute, that usually ends the conversation and she just scrambles for an excuse to leave."

Shannoscubie:

I've approached all types: From future medical students, to drunk girls in clubs, to girls running in the park, the responses are the same. I am proud to say that girls of all races, nationality, educational background, and social status reject me equally. 101 and counting. Thank you, genes! :)

Dragynlady:

I maintain a reasonable sense of decorum when approaching girls, since the goal is to succeed. I try not to be soft-spoken, i try not to be too nice, I look them in the eye, and I walk like I own the freaking country. Still, I suppose there's only so much of that confidence you can fake when you're 5'4! Natural selection is a b****.

Maybe the issue is that you are "faking" confidence instead of having confidence. Also in my experience I have never been responsive to a man that I just met telling me that I am cute or pretty, that always comes off like they are hitting on me, or shallow and desperate. If a girl is interested she will let you know either directly or by flirting and finding excuses to touch your arm etc. When you start getting those signals from a girl is the time to start paying her compliments. If she is not giving you any signals then hold off and get to know her first. Once she gets to know you better she may have an interest and start showing it. The guys that had the best luck with me were always friendly, confident, but not obviously looking for a date. The guys I dated were always friends first, because what matters to me is the persons personality not what they look like. I am sorry that you are having troubles getting a date. I personally never gave a hoot about a guys height - my ex is 6'2" and my partner now is 5'6" (I'm 5'5"). I have also dated men shorter than me. I don't know you, so take my advice with a grain of salt. Perhaps you have a close female friend that will be honest with you and tell you what you could do to improve your chances with other girls.

One of the more sadly ironic oxymorons of the last decade is the term "abstinence-only education." It's like sending your kids to driver's ed and having the teacher say "the best way to avoid dying in a car accident is never to be in a car. Class dismissed."

Dave, you got it. Excellent analogy.

Telling kids not to have sex is like telling kids dont get pimples. Some of the strongest and most active chemicals in our bodies are hormones. Give it up for hormones !!!! Dont fight it!!!

Actually, Clinton tried to do something about it, but when Joycelyn Elders suggested masturbating as a safe alternative to sex for, well pretty much everyone, she was attacked to the point she had to resign.

From the sound of things, Bristol didn't have to go out to be nailed......she got to stay in her own bedroom in her parent's house with her baby daddy....

Considering all the publicity Bristol has gotten (she's even incorporated her own PR company), she makes teenage pregnancy look like a pretty good option.

"No, thank you" worked quite well when I was offered pot by a drug dealer while pumping gas, much to my amusement.

Kids rule, and they're the best thing that ever happened to me. But now that that's all said and done, the vasectomy is great too.

What we need is easily reversible vasectomies, and every young man gets one at or before puberty.

I'm with you. I've not had kids, I never will, and I'll tell you what almost everyone that I talk to that has kids is envious. Never been married. Unless I find a woman that doesn't want kids I won't get married either. There is always only one date with a woman because I'm up front about the fact I don't want Children. Apparently it's a deal breaker for them. LOL. They always look at me wierd and ask me why. I even get a wierder look when I tell them I don't like kids, at all.

Dave in NM, Toph,

I'm sure kids are great. If you put the time and work into them, they certainly are. Toph, I am married and there are plenty of women that feel as we do. You will usually find them in real careers, collage educated and earning at least as much as you. My wife is 5'4" and 114 pounds soaking wet and is still a hottie at 46.

I got my vasectomy at 27. There was NO intention of having kids because I wanted to LIVE MY LIFE. Some say that is selfish. But here is a slightly deeper perspective that I have on that:

My sperm is not any more special than anyone else and therefore we do not need to elevate our standing in the world by making a copy of myself so that I can say "...look what we made...". Rather, there are millions of children all over the world that would love to have a parent or two when they have none at all. We would be at least as happy to have one of them and we can tell them "We chose you out of all the others".

What we need is easily reversible vasectomies, and every young man gets one at or before puberty.

Awesome! A long time ago, my mom said "There should be a way to sterilize everyone at birth so that the only way to have kids is to do it on purpose."

She also said, after some particularly harrowing parental experience courtesy of myself or my sister: "This is why some animals eat their young."

I love my mom.

I got my vasectomy at 27. There was NO intention of having kids because I wanted to LIVE MY LIFE. Some say that is selfish.

Not me. It's WAY more selfish to father children you don't want and won't invest the time or money in parenting, whether or not you intend to stick around afterward. I commend you for knowing yourself and sparing the world more unwanted children. Me, I never lived my life - never really knew happiness - until I had my kids. But I'm not you. Good on ya.

Awesome! A long time ago, my mom said "There should be a way to sterilize everyone at birth so that the only way to have kids is to do it on purpose."

Same thing I've been saying for years. And again - it's a plan that would make elective abortion unheard-of, and who opposes it most? Knee-jerk religious fundamentalists.

If your mom were running for office, based on that plank alone, she'd have my vote.

If your mom were running for office, based on that plank alone, she'd have my vote.

LOL! I'll let her know. She's waaaaay far left, though. ;-)

Shannoscubie:"I'll let her know. She's waaaaay far left, though. ;-)" Unless you're being sarcastic or ironic, in which case I'm laughing with you, I would find it interesting that you would consign all those interested in providing sex educaton to the left wing of the political spectrum. Scary, actually, because that would mean that most unwanted pregnancies and births would be to right-wing parents--and god knows we've more than enough of those bastards.

Peter, I believe if you look at the charts.....red states do have a higher rate of teenage pregnancies

http://www.alternet.org/books/147399/red_state_families_vs._blue_state_families%3A_the_family-values_divide

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/6/145758/107

I hope these work.....I'm terrible at links......

@Toph-

Hang in there- we're out there! I met my husband after his vasectomy. He told me on our first date and I thought it was the greatest thing ever because I've never wanted kids myself. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad some people choose to have children. After all, my parents did, and so did his, and yours too.

As far as teenagers go, since I'm not a parent I don't feel very qualified to say "we should teach ______— "(fill it in as you wish). I know that in school we were taught abstinence AND safety, but I was really lucky to have adults in my life to go to with questions that I was too embarrassed to ask in class.

sweet_chef

Dave said:

"What we need is easily reversible vasectomies, and every young man gets one at or before puberty."

Way cool for preventing unwanted children, but how does it work for preventing STD's?

I suspect that without the fear of pregnancy, most young males would not bother to wrap their stump before they hump.

Unless you're being sarcastic or ironic, in which case I'm laughing with you,

LOL! No, I was just warning Dave that if my mom had a platform, it would be way-far left. Not necessarily for including the deliberate-pregnancy thing.

I would find it interesting that you would consign all those interested in providing sex educaton to the left wing of the political spectrum.

I dunno. I could be wrong, statistically, for agreeing with that assessment. Anecdotally, though, that's been my experience. For instance, my mother gave me a copy of "Our Bodies, Our Selves" when I was about seven years old. My decision-making mantra to this day has been "more data, more data, more data" and I'm trying to pass that along to my own kids.

Dave said:
"What we need is easily reversible vasectomies, and every young man gets one at or before puberty."
Way cool for preventing unwanted children, but how does it work for preventing STD's?
I suspect that without the fear of pregnancy, most young males would not bother to wrap their stump before they hump.

Sure, it's just the solution to one problem, not to all. But every young man who can get away with using it out of the wrapper will anyway, onaccounta condoms suck. If I come up with a solution for the STD problem, I'll get back to ya. :)

Shannoscubie: my mother gave me a copy of "Our Bodies, Our Selves" when I was about seven years old. My decision-making mantra to this day has been "more data, more data, more data" and I'm trying to pass that along to my own kids.

Halle-freakin'LUJAH. Nice to hear another parent with the right idea. Knowledge is power; let's make our kids powerful!

People dread the Sex Talk, but I thought it was kinda fun. My kids were so matter-of-fact about it. No trauma, just "oh. OK, that explains a lot. Thanks for telling us." Kids rule.

On the note of liberal vs conservative, we (my wife & I) tend to be moderately conservative, and we had the talk with our kids early, and often. During their teenage years, the medicine cabinet was ALWAYS stocked with condoms, it was on our grocery list every week.

No one got pregnant in our house.

No one got an STD in our house.

a lying republican woman in denial,..... that plays with herself.

allegedly!

kj031056-1

You need to read the Kinsey studies. Everyone play with themselves but women lie about it more then men do.

O'Donnell play with herself. But if she is not happy with the results, well,... then she's not doin it right.

Oh Bill I have no doubt that there has been a finger where it shouldn't have been or a detachable shower head used for something other than rinsing or even a direct stream of water from the bathtub facet......or one of my favorites, hitting the right spot while driving with the seam of my jeans in just the right spot.....

That's what the allegedly is for, I doubt she'd admit it......

They are more fun when provoked, even incidentally. :)

An evangelical work colleague was beside himself at lunch one day when a co-worker set his wallet on the table. There was a circle-shaped imprint through the leather....looked for all the world like a condom, I guess, but it was his work security badge. Of course, we ALL have one just like it here, and they all have circular RF disks on the backs. Funny how only the evangelical was the one to jump to an alternate explanation. I guess to him, the rest of us are all hedonists who can barely keep our pants on.

icstars .. he was probably just jealous that other people get laid.

This is only even arguably a possibility if the parents are unwilling to commit to frank, honest, open discussions of sexuality with their children. And the fact that there are so many parents just like that out there? THAT is the national disgrace.

Sex is great! Our bodies are wonderful! Fear of them and the pleasure they can give us is counterproductive and irrational.

Also? Computers have parental controls now. Really. My kids log on to their own accounts and I've set the accounts so they can't access stuff like that.

It seems to be quite all right to air TV shows and movies that depict the most explicit and terrible means of hurting and killing people-- blood gushing from bullet holes and kife wounds, arms and legs being torn off--but the explicit depiction of the act of love is a generally accepted no-no on all public media. Kind of shows you where your national priorities are in education, doesn't it? A soldier can be dismissed for having sex with a willing partner in the service, but is routinely told that it is his/her duty to maim, murder, and sometimes torture human beings who are "on the other side." Remember when Saddam was on your side? At what pont did it become OK for him to be your enemy and that to kill his followers a duty? What kind of schizophrenia are you encouraging in your youth with that one?

Wow. You were doing just fine when you said schools shouldn't teach morality, and that they need to teach about biology/anatomy. Then this hard-right turn to concluding that sexuality has nothing to do with biology or anatomy?!? Teaching about sexual activity, birth control, homosexuality, puberty, menstruation, ejaculation, pregnancy -- those subjects ARE biology and anatomy, and have NOTHING to do with morality!! They're FACTS. Leave your moral conclusions ABOUT those facts for home, sure. But the schools NEED to teach those facts. Not to do so would be to do our children a grave disservice.

YES!! Precisely. Well said.

I guess that's the kind of thing that would tend to run in a family... ;-)

Ugly chicks can get laid, too (just turn the lights out). It's the ugly DUDES that don't need the information.