What's wrong with '80s clothing?

Why are we relying on the school system to teach our children that WE should be teaching them?

Because some things are too important to leave up to the vagaries of parents who will or won't bother to teach them, or who will replace crucial information with ill-informed dogma. We owe ALL the children in our society ALL the facts. Leave it up to parents to teach moral judgments based on those facts, but sex is part of human biology, and in many ways the most important part to teach children. To abdicate that responsibility as a society would be a grave mistake.

cheetah: mmm, Jordache...

Sex education is more important today. It's not just about pregnancy anymore. You can get STD's that will stay with you for life, or things that can kill you.

Abstinence only education was a farse. Studies showed it didn't work, and we kept on doing it. I'm glad to hear that we are finally funding things that might have an impact.

Parents are really lousy at teach9ing sex ed to their kids. That leaves the best place to get to all the kids is the school.

It is good that our country is finally coming back to the 21st century and looking to alternatives to the 17th century. Hopefully this trend will continue and the U.S. can become a world leader.

The thing is regardless of the source of information be it peers and their individual ignorance or school and all the AV exposure they offer it is still up to the parents to validate any information that children are exposed to social design "dogma" included.

I can't imaging there are that many places that only offer "abstinence only" in a sex ed class anyway. The best sex ed is to expose children to the raw facts although they should really temper to the age of a child.

My daughter, to her disgust, was exposed to images of actual adult diseased sex organs. I was appalled that that was part of sex ed (If I really wanted them to have access to pornographic images I would take the security off of their internet connection) but, as a parent it opened up a whole new avenue to discuss not only healthy sexual behavior and responsibility but the reason that abstinence and limiting a lifetime of sexual partners is important to reproductive and overall heath.

Sadly, there are a whole lot of parents who will avoid that conversation with their children even when their children trust them enough to ask questions.

agreed i graduated high school in 04 and all it was about was how babies we developed. Kids need to be taught the reality of adoption, abortion, having a baby, the risks, sacrifices, consequences, and of course about STDs. Life outside of high school is ruff and most teens dont realize it they think it'll be easy and fun but it's not. Also if other teens find out they are having sex the bullying and teasing happens. The real world isnt rated G and adults and parents need to educate their children to be better prepared. Like my principle used to say every morning "the choices you make today shape your world tomorrow" lol i hated that saying back then but it makes sense.

Maybe seeing an adult diseased sexual organ will keep your daughter and her classmates from making poor sexual decisions in the future. Besides nudity does not automatically equal pornography. Just because a text shows a sex organ does not make it pornographic. If it is for educational or artistic purposes then it is just that - education or art. Only when the sex organs are displayed in a lewd manner for the purpose of arousing sexual desire do they become pornographic. I seriously doubt anyone viewing a diseased adult sexual organ is going to be sexually aroused.

We owe ALL the children in our society ALL the facts.

lmao, yeah, schools are doing such a great job wit da tree R's. I think we should do like in south park, start in kindergarden. "Yes, sally, a dirty sanchez is something you can do with your partner. What else, class?" Then mr garrison shows them how to put a condom on a dildo with his mouth. a preview of things to come... and it's about time!

Stop drinking Windex! Get help NOW! Geez.

sorry, don't have a hissy. speaking of, will they cover gay sex?

If they are serious about combating teen suicide as well, yes.

I taught my own kids their sex ed. I had "the talk" with each and every one of them before they were 11. I continued to talk to them until they were young adults. I talked to them in a language they understood; and let them know it wasn't MY choice but THIERS. I kept condoms in my hall closet. All my kids knew.. if condoms come up missing from there; no questions will be asked. My kids all feel that I did them justice; and thank me for taking the time to PERSONALLY teach them respect, restraint; and protection.

Schools cannot offer this. Schools are where this should begin (for some people) but should never be the final say. Parents, BE A FREAKING PARENT FOR ONCE.

Sex ed is a health issue. Should parents be the only ones responsible to teach their kids about viruses? And while I'm sure that every parent knows everything about sex, (just like they know everything about math, literature, etc.) maybe, just maybe, a more standardized fact based curriculum is appropriate seeing as how consequences from having sex can be quite life changing.

I believe it's the role of parents to inform their children about what's up with regards to sex, but at the same time the impact to society based on how good the parents information is great enough that I think it should be taught in schools so there's a uniform statement of facts.

My mother had 'the talk' with me, and basically stated, "I don't think you should, but it's your life, and if you are going to, you should be safe so you don't have a baby or contract an STD."

Worked well for me, probably do the same when I have kids.

in a perfect world, everyone would have perfect parents who talk to their kids about abstinance and safe sex, but that's not the case. the school system isn't perfect either, but it's better than nothing.

That's right. Parents abdicate their responsibilities so it is up the schools to be the real parents. That way if our kids turn out wrong, we can blame the schools and the government. It is after all the governments job to take care of us all. We are no longer capable of acting as responsible adults.

(BTW it is not "farse", it is "farce" - evidently your spelling class was not comprehensive enough.)

BTW "governments" needs an apostrophe either before or after the "s". Evidently YOUR spelling class was not comprehensive enough either.

I was quite lucky in that my mom was always honest with me so there was actually never any real need for the "Talk" because I always had the level of information appropriate for my age. By the time my sister and I hit puberty we knew what was going on.

As for abstinence only, it is so patently damaging to equate sex with marriage in the minds of teenagers. "I am a horny 17 year old, so to get laid I need to marry my 16 year old girlfriend and abandon any ideas of college or natural adult growth" This is especially boneheaded when you consider how many kids have divorced parents. It is all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to turn America back to the 1950's when a pregnant teenager was married off young so she wouldn't end up going to college and becoming a feminist or lesbian. Or a sad cautionary tale for other young women about the dangers of breaking repressive, Victorian Era sexual customs.

Instead, why don't we tell kids that they should wait until they are ADULTS before making adult decisions? Then it makes sense to teach them about the contraceptives and appropriate attitudes they will need when they become adults. I think that kids today, who are ever increasingly more sophisticated about sexuality, would respect such advice far more than "save it for your wedding night".

Vince...

Maybe seeing an adult diseased sexual organ will keep your daughter and her classmates from making poor sexual decisions in the future. Besides nudity does not automatically equal pornography.

Wow Vince...Maybe it will maybe not...again we are saying maybe. Based on my daughters reaction I don't think she will willingly go anywhere near a penis for a very long time and she will damn sure look to see what is on it before she touches. Currently she is struggling with the idea of public bathrooms as an option because apparently those diseased vaginas were pretty nasty.

If it is for educational or artistic purposes then it is just that - education or art. Only when the sex organs are displayed in a lewd manner for the purpose of arousing sexual desire do they become pornographic.

Well as for nudity being pornographic...I think we all realize that is subjective thus the range of laws that deal with the promotion and distribution of sexually explicit images. As for images of sexual organs in a sex ed class, or sexual position discussed in a sex ed class or sexual preference discussed in a sex ed class and so much over the course of a semester the fact remains it is a "SEX ED class" part of sex education must include the fact that there are pleasant and gratifying aspects of that and that not all individuals find that pleasure or gratification at the same level. Go figure that is the link that would include images of adult vaginas, penises, breasts and anuses the subject of sexual desire. According to your own definition those images would be pornographic. Really, in the best of intentions you can have one specific reason to present something but honestly, any audience will turn that information to their own interest or perversion.

As for nudity in art. Again, that is subjective and accepted as such. If a parent does not wish for their child to see the naked human form they can decline invitations to art museums or other venues where nudity is accepted. It is not forced on the masses.

I seriously doubt anyone viewing a diseased adult sexual organ is going to be sexually aroused.

Where I would hope you are right as polite society goes. But, as a practical person I have to say that we have some pretty sick people in this country and many of them are minors.

c'mon....Yes, homosexuality is discusses as is heterosexuality.

TransCalifornia....You are spot on....the conversation doesn't end and communication must be left open. No parent has to agree with everything their child says or does but you need to love them enough to help them move om when they mess up.

AtomicZeplinMan....So as a horney 17 year old you are good with knocking up some girl that fell for your lame line and then walking away off to college and into life while she raises your kid?

Mama's....Teach your daughters to laugh out loud at some of the stupid things 17 year old boys will say to get into their pants. Then tell them to just turn and walk away making sure to gossip about it with the girls.

Atomic[Zeppelin]Man....So as a [horny] 17 year old you are good with knocking up some girl that fell for your lame line and then walking away off to college and into life while she raises your kid?

Obviously, you did not read AZM's post, e.g.: "why don't we tell kids that they should wait until they are ADULTS before making adult decisions? Then it makes sense to teach them about the contraceptives..." He spoke of both practical education and delaying the onset of sexual activity. Are you just grasping for something to argue about?

And while we're at it, DO you believe children should be taught about contraception and prophylaxis? If not, your snide remark about pregnancy seems ludicrously hypocritical.

Beth-440386 wrote

That's right. Parents abdicate their responsibilities so it is up the schools to be the real parents. That way if our kids turn out wrong, we can blame the schools and the government. It is after all the governments job to take care of us all. We are no longer capable of acting as responsible adults.

(BTW it is not "farse", it is "farce" - evidently your spelling class was not comprehensive enough.)

"BTW "governments" needs an apostrophe either before or after the "s". Evidently YOUR spelling class was not comprehensive enough either."

Thank you, Beth for correcting that. But that would have been English grammar not spelling where I went to school. In any event, I always have trouble with that possessive / non-possessive thing.

txmom32 what they heck are you talking about? You took my sarcastic example quote of a "hypothetical teenager" and used it to make a completely unintelligible point.

Thank you, Beth for correcting that. But that would have been English grammar not spelling where I went to school. In any event, I always have trouble with that possessive / non-possessive thing.

It's also a spelling error ... depending upon how you look at it. However, I was taking YOUR petty criticism verbatim. If you can't get EVERY LITTLE THING right, why criticize someone else?

Kimblitt Why are we relying on the school system to teach our children that WE should be teaching them? It is the PARENTS' responsibility.... WE are the ones who are supposed to be asking them what they want out of life and then helping them achieve their goals! Why is it that we rely so heavily on the public school system (that doesn't pay their teachers nearly enough to raise our children for us)?

Because although I agree with you... if you've spent much time around the schools (and I have) you quickly realize that way too many parents either don't, or won't invest that time in their kids.

Lots of parents talk a good game, and lots of them like to point fingers at the schools and at teachers... especially when the subject crosses paths with politics.

The hard truth is that talk is cheap and there's not much follow-through, so... it comes back to expecting the schools to do the parenting, all the while beating up on them for "Stepping On Our Rights". Ptooie.

I saw the diseased organ pictures in health in college the Friday before spring break. Scared the crap out of everyone. Very effective.

I do agree that we should not be funneling all this money into a program that doesn't work, and tries to address issues that parents should be addressing. Children do not realize how limited their future becomes when they have a child on the way. Then there's abortion, or adoption, and all the baggage that a young, immature soul has to deal with from those two options. I remember my younger years, having no vision for the future at all, and consequently made choices based on desires, and needs, of the moment. Hungry? Get a job to earn money to buy food so you won't be hungry. Thanks, mom and dad. I forgive you, but it's been a struggle to overcome. We have got to help our children develop a plan for the future, and vision for it, then help them reach it. It's so much easier if they don't have to deal with a pregnancy along the way.

liz: Scare tactic are very limited in their effectiveness over the long term, particularly when we are talking about a basic biological urge. Besides, smart kids do recognize the inherent dishonesty of scare tactics. And dumb kids will just convince themselves that it won't happen to them.

Yeah, some people will make bad choices no matter what.

"the talk" that my mom gave me consisted of the following: "Any girl that has sex in high school is a whore and I won't have a whore living in my house". Very informative, as I am sure you agree. Hopefully most parents do a better job than that, but if not I say thank goodness for comprehensive sex ed in schools! The school I went to had limited sex ed, but it was better than what I got at home.

I am all for teaching young people the facts that they need to know to make well informed decisions, especially when it comes to things that can not only change their lives but end them as well. It needs to be started early using terms and concepts the children can understand with an age appropriate amount of information. People think that it is OK to wait to start sex ed in high school, but there are 12 year olds getting pregnant....when I was in 5th grade a girl in the 6th grade class got pregnant. That is of course on the extreme side of things, but with our current standards of living and nutrition, many 10 year old girls are now getting their periods and we owe it to them to make sure they at least know that getting pregnant can happen! And as for STDs - the more information the better.

SSPGirl- I think your mom and my dad must have been related somehow. Fortunately, I had my mother, who while totally awkward about it, did a better job at the whole thing.

I want my children to know that they can come to me for anything. If they feel uncomfortable about talking with me or their dad about sex, they have the coolest aunts and uncles and godparents that they can talk to instead. Regardless of who they talk to, I want them to know that when the time comes that they even start *thinking* about becoming sexually active, they need to go to an adult that they trust so that they have the proper protection. I would prefer to put my daughter on birth control years before she starts having sex rather than one day afterwards, and have it be too late.

Knowledge is power, people. The more someone knows about a topic, the better informed and the better prepared they will be.

Txmom, Look hun....parents dont teach their kids about sex or they misinform them because they are uncomfortable. The REALITY of sex is not just gratification. It has consequenses too like preganacy, painful ugly sores which if someone doesnt know what they look like it can and will freak them out. Lady, life is not all beautiful...it has its ugly parts too and you cant shelter your kids from it. Eventually they will find out or be misinformed and in serious trouble. Do you want to risk that? To depend on other parents to do their job is pure fantasy. And education shouldnt be a scare tactic as those fail too....take for instance the scare tactic on pot....oh brother.

Yes, it would be nice if all parents were capable of teaching their children about sex. That, however, is an ideal world, where everyone has a high level of education and knowledge.

As an example of how many do NOT have a high level of knowledge - my mother truly believes that if you ingest dog or cat hair, the hair will turn into worms in your digestive system. You read that right - the hair becomes worms.

My brother, sister and I tried for years to teach her that hair can NOT turn into worms, but it can happen ONLY when the eggs of worms are on the hair, the eggs hatch and grow, and then the person gets worms in the digestive system. After many futile years, we gave up.

My mother is not the only one who believes that fallacy - many, many people of her generation and following generations believe it. Just ask around, especially of those who did not take (or did not pay attention during) science classes.

That is not the only fallacy some people have.
- Some believe that it is extremely easy for girls to get pregnant from a public toilet.
- Some of the youth of today don't think oral sex is sex, and that you cannot get STDs by engaging in oral sex. They believe that STDs are only possible when a penis penetrates a vagina.
- Some of the youth of today think that STDs can only be passed from person to person if the two persons are of the same sex.

Why? That's what they were told (either directly or indirectly) by their parents and/or peers.

You gotta know that something is wrong when kids are having sex in public libraries. Yes, I heard something that sounded a bit "off" one day and walked around a corner and there they were. I called their parents and neither set was willing to come down and deal with their children. Since one was 12 and the other 13, CPS was called.

Mike in B-more- Excellent, excellent post. And true story. I have worked with the public for years. It is astounding how many parents are just as uneducated as their 11 year old. I've worked with many mothers who believe those things that you mentioned, and it always turned out to be that THEIR parents refused to educate THEM as a child, and just filled their minds with a bunch of inaccurate information so as to scare them into abstinence. It doesn't work. The kid still ends up pregnant but is completely clueless about what's going on with her body, and what she has in store for her in the future.

I know a woman who thought she had broken her vagina when she got her period. She thought it was broken because God was punishing her for masturbating. She didn't know anything about sex until her wedding night. She was *clueless* about the entire process. And when she got pregnant, she had to do a LOT of reading on the subject of what was happening to her.

Now we have situations where the children know a little bit too much about sex. Kids are getting older at younger ages. That is why this program needs to focus on educating our kids, not just about sex, but about life. They need to understand that goal that they are reaching for, and how sex and children can easily take away all of their dreams.

In the 80s, we had to watch dated sex ed films featuring a cavalcade of bad 70s fashion. LOL.

I agree that the job to teach sex ed should be the parents. But that's not realistic when parents themselves won't talk to their kids about sex. Had I not had sex ed in school, I wouldn't have had any other than my mother handing me a booklet from the early 1960s about menstruation and my father threatening to kick me out of the house if I ever got pregnant.

In this day and age, with sex everywhere, you can't afford to put your head in the sand.

What about that is particularly responsible? He is telling his kid that he wishes he waits but if he doesn't wait he can get access to free condoms. All this guy is doing is absolving himself of any personal liability when his 17 year old knocks up some 15 year old girl. At that point his bases are all covered even though his 17 year old may or may not use condoms. The 17 year old can always say the little slut put a hole in the rubber.

If he really cares to be responsible he will encourage his son to tell him if and when he becomes sexually active to assure that he can at least meet the girl that could potentially carry his grand child and be in their lives forever.

It is very responsible. Abstinence only education deprives kids of the tools and information they need to make informed decisions about their sexuality. When all you do is tell kids "don't do it," you are placing your hopes that your morals will trump millions of years of evolution. Fat chance. However, if you tell them that abstinence is the only 100% sure method of birth control and to prevent STIs however, condom use can significantly reduce the likelihood of these things occurring then you have given them another tool. The question is not do I do it or not (your biology says you do and again you probably are going to lose a fight with biology). The question then becomes, if I decide to do it what are my options. Too many kids are having unprotected sex and having children and spreading STIs. This number could be greatly reduced if they just had the access to common sense contraceptives and information.

Agree with Vince. It used to be people had babies when they were a lot younger, culturally (and financially) we have shifted away from that. Better to be prepared for the reality of the situation than some ideal fantasy world where everyone is able to surpress hormonal urges.

You are both assuming that no one is talking in the home. Responsible parents are talking in the home. Responsible parents do provide information to their children and are prepared to balance that information with appropriate information for a healthy perspective emotionally, socially and physically.

My point above is that where the dad can feel really good that he has covered his liability what about his responsibility. His teen son sleeps with the wrong girl and oops forgets the condom after a time a rash develops south of his belly button is that kid going to know or trust that he can talk to his father about the consequences of his actions? In the above example all that was covered was the use of a condom. Apparently, the only attempts at a discussion of sexual health was a discussion on condoms. Possibly, the father should continue that discussion with so if you do and if anything is ever not quite right below the belt let me know and we can take you to a DR.

Now, suppose dad gives that advice thinking that little Johnny is going to go find little Jill under a bridge and little Jill is actually little Jimmy with some sort of fungus somewhere little Johnny better have an open enough line of communication with his dad to deal with those health issues as well.

This stuff cannot be taught in a classroom. It must be taught at home and it must include an approach that will always put the child and their health in the forefront.

As for "suppressing hormonal urges" it is called self-control and if we can teach self-control in other important aspects of life why is it so "yesterday" to teach self-control when it involves estrogen and testosterone? That is just a cop out.

It's responsible because it tells the kid what is wished for them (to wait), yet, is realistic to realize that waiting may not be what happens for this kid. I'd rather my son understand that, while I wish he'd wait, I understand that sex is his decision. I would rather my son understand that condoms, while not perfect, will help protect him from STI's and/or from becoming a father before he is ready.

My sister wanted a baby at 15, found a guy, and got pregnant. I am a volunteer with an organization that helps children in a third world country, and teen pregnancy is usually the result of rape or abuse. Sometimes impoverished parents will sell their children to adults for sex, however there are no government programs available to young, unwed mothers. Not like in the States. Therefore, many of these babies are abandoned, or exposed.

Here in the good ol US of A, there are all kinds of programs to assist a young, something-teen, unwed mother. Suddenly, people care about her, and smile at her, and treat her like she's special cuz she's the baby's momma. So, we funnel millions into programs that discourage and try to prevent teenage pregnancies, then when they do get pregnant, we reward them with care and notoriety. I'm not for exposing babies, or abandoning them, not at all. But really, isn't prevention worth a pound of cure? And therein lies the question. What is the best means to prevent teenage pregnancy? Condoms? Promoting Absitinence? Chastity belts? Older brothers with shotguns? The fix would be to have parents raise their children right, but that would involve morality, and you can't legislate morality. Not in a free society. But the fact is, do we want to allow this to continue unabated? Or do we just flat not care?

Levi777: "But really, isn't prevention worth a pound of cure?" Yes. That's what fact based sex ed is.

txmom32, the reason we are assuming that the parents don't cover it at home is that they don't. If they did we would not even be having this conversation. The fact is parents just assume (hope) their kids aren't having sex and so to avoid their own discomfort they avoid the topic. Sure SOME parents give their kids adequate information for them to be able to make informed choices about their sexuality. However, many, I would venture to say most parents do not. Therefore the job falls to the public school system. This is not a matter of morality but a matter of public health. Unless you can devise some system to ensure that every parent discusses sexual behavior, consequences, alternatives, contraceptives, etc., with his/her child, then this is the most logical, common sense approach to dealing with the public health issues of STIs and teen pregnancy.

yeah, fallout. I agree. I haven't been approaching the "Thou shalt not" aspect of it because not everyone shares in a belief in God, sin, and so on. The facts are, when you are young and have your future ahead of you, a pregnancy will only complicate matters, and close many doors. Abortion and adoption are legal options, however they carry emotional wounds with them. Too many older women who have had abortions or given up a child for adoption still carry the sorrow and regret, even if they presently believe "it was the right thing to do"

Levi- I'll tell you a GREAT way to help lower teen pregnancies. My mother once took care of a friends infant while her friend was in the hospital. The little baby was with us for close to a week. I think he was maybe...8 weeks or so.

My mom made me and my sister get up with her every 2 hours and help feed and change the baby. We had to take primary responsiblity for this kid (who had colic btw), under her supervision. My son is very lucky that I ever got over the trauma of that experience, because for the longest time, I swore I was never going to have kids. lol.

LOL! My youngest daughter, in her 20s, just gave birth to a son two weeks ago. She posted a FB message saying "I LOVE being a mommy!" and I said, "Yeah, give it a couple of years, when he'll be running around like a jackrabbit on crack". But for all, it's such a blessed part of life, when it's done correctly.

Congrats on the new grandbaby! I too am so loving being a mommy, but I'm going to be in soooo much trouble as soon as he becomes mobile. "NO TOUCHEY!" ::run run run::

That's why we have kids when we are young. So we can keep up.

I'm the oldest 28 year old I know LOL. I'm POOPED.

Naw, you're Super-Mom!

Not that it's really my business, but this is a comment forum-I hope those parents who are putting condoms in the drawer or in the closet are making sure their kids know how to use them and know the success and failure rates for them when used correctly. Kids should know that they don't work at all when not used or not used correctly. The kids should have all the information to make the safest choices, shouldn't they? I'm not for abstinence only education, but I won't hesitate to tell my child that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and the the spread of STD's. Why not share that information if we really want to keep our kids safe? I was abstinent as a teen, and I don't regret it for a millisecond. Sure, I missed out on a lot-no STD's, no unplanned pregnancy, no one-night stands, no emotional devastation, no abortions (not that way anyway.) And yeah, my marriage was affected-no ghosts of other lovers, no regrets, long-term marriage. Before all of you freak, I did tell my daughter about STD's and birth control because I thought she should know. I also asked if she didn't have enough self respect not to give herself to the first guy who came along trying to satisfy his curiosity or to put a notch in his belt. (or the second or third) And did she want to wait for someone who loved her for who she was, for her as a person, who cared about her happiness as much as she did his, someone who was at least willing to make a commitment to her. I didn't tell her what to do; I asked her.

The only sex ed film I ever saw was on "quad sex" (quadroplegic sex) in PT school. No offense to any disabled people-they really did show us a film like that. My mom left us a booklet by Ann Landers on the coffee table when I was 13. That was it!

Who in their right mind could possibly believe that abstinence-only sex ed would work?

They never wanted it to work. They love the elevated teen birth rates in the Bible belt. It means more little uneducated right-wingers to vote with their hate instead of their brains.

Gee, I never thought about it that way Dave, but now that you point this out, I must say I agree!

This is the running joke in our house after my daughters 7th grade experience with sex ed.

This is all part of "Obama Care" teach children to self-diagnose their own social disease so they won't have to go to the DR to receive care. Schools will probably be able to get FED dollars as they are teaching "Preventative care". Just one more way to funnel money.

Dave in NM, excellent point. txmom32, the point of a joke is to be funny. That was just stupid.

dave, talk about hate, try looking in the mirror. on second thought...

since we're throwing out patisan crap, teen preg rates are much higher among the poor (dems) so they're more likely to be breeding future voters, not mention future welfare leaches.

Care to cite your source on democrats having a higher teen pregnancy rate, professor?

I thought studies have actually shown teen pregnancy rates to be higher among the religious right. That may be birth rates as opposed to pregnancy rates though.

Well, they are, but I just wanted to see him scramble and scour the internet for an article that fits his narrative. Unsuccessfully, might I ad.

sorry toadie, have better things to do. how about you provide some link?

Link to what? You're the one who made the assertion. All I did was ask that you cite it (hint: you can't).

sheesh, this took all of 10 seconds, try googling pregnancy rates by income, this was the first of several pages. www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/05/04/index.html

put down the pipe, get off the internet and get a job. I know it's easier to just sit around waiting for your welfare check, but come on!

cmon: to counter your obviously fallacious equation of income with politics (at least your laughable assumption that Republicans make more money, particularly in the Bible belt, which was my point):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

The religious right is anti-education; ergo, it is hardly surprising that their rank-and-file voters are kept poor and ignorant.

As to your comment about "hate," since you obviously can't refute me on the facts, can you identify anything in my post that consists of a value judgment on the love/hate continuum?

That's weird, cmon, not a single thing in your article about democrats...

That's weird, [c'mon], not a single thing in your article about [D]emocrats...

There are [D]emocrats in the Bible belt?

Dave in NM

There are [D]emocrats in the Bible belt?

Yeah, and we're not on board with the right-wing yahoos nor are we interested in secession. It's pretty embarrassing being associated with the wingnuts.

To the extent, if any, to which I have associated you with the wingnuts, I apologize for giving that impression. My point was that the Bible belt skews heavily religious / conservative / Republican, and has elevated rates of several social dysfunctions, including teen births, to counter cmon's ridiculous (if weasely and veiled) assertion that Democrats are poor, Republicans are rich, and it's Democrats who are having the high teen birth rates. Those of us who are informed and open-minded, and fortunate enough NOT to be in the Bible belt, appreciate those of you functional, rational humans who are there. Someone has to keep the lights on.

Excuse me, but, what "glimmering of sense" are you referring to? Doesn't anyone recognize a taxpayer con game when they see one? Why is there even special funding for sex education? Heck, 40 years ago we had sex education as part of the science program. I think they included it in as part of a biology class. Who'd a thunk? The reality is that this is nothing but a pork program for teachers. A political payback, if you will. One more reason to shut down federal funding and let the state and locals decide what to teach and let them pay for it. The more local the decisions are, the more relevant the teaching is to what the community wants to teach. If a school wants to teach sex ed, let them teach it. If they can't figure out a way to teach it with federal government funding, then the school should be shut down because it is clear that those running it don't have any brains.

Good post about your RA responsibilities. I volunteered in a Planned Parenthood clinic weekly and I had a woman tell me that because the birth control pill made her sick, she put it in her husband's coffee.

Ignorance is not bliss. In this case, it was her 11th baby.

I volunteered in a Planned Parenthood clinic weekly and I had a woman tell me that because the birth control pill made her sick, she put it in her husband's coffee.

LOL - That's horrible!!

It's also a perfect example of a need of better sex education.

Just to add to this glorious discussion, I recall from my statistical analysis days in college that when you plug in the numbers (Census data, various social survey indices' data, etc.) both the very poor and very rich tend to be more predominately Republican, whereas the middle and low upper class (those with money, but not THAT much money) tend towards voting Democrat. And there is a very clear inverse relationship between levels of college education and voting Republican--the more years of higher ed, the more solidly liberal a person's voting habits (hence the ivory tower intellectual stereotype). And I know this FOR MYSELF, rather than having listened to any pundit or supposed "research thinktank" who may have skewed results.

So...... The more education you have the more liberal you become? Really? I always wondered how that worked.....

"just say no" was about drugs and teen drug use went down in the 80's. Then bubba inhaled and it went back up in the 90's. Words matter.

You must not have been around in the '80s if you think drug use went down in that period. I doubt seriously that the President, either President Reagan or President Clinton, had anything to do with any changes in drug use.

Drug use did not go down in the 1980s. President Clinton's past marijuana use (which I don't even consider to be a "drug") had nothing to do with the drug use in this nation. Don't get your facts and statistics from Glenn Beck or Faux News. You ended up looking as stupid as they do.

bs detector: What an ironic name. The only thing about drugs that went down was the price. The cocaine market was at an all time high (no pun). Cocaine money rebuilt Miami. Reagan and company were importing cocaine to supply guns for the contras (and help fuel the beginnings of crack as the inner city drug of choice). Republican morality at its best.

Come on, just because people do not have the same "lack" of belief structure that you do does not make them a cancer. Your lack of civility and respect for others is the cancer that scares me.

scmathisean, I agree with you on the cancer comment, but you are doing something similar when you say not being religious is a "lack" of belief structure. Since humans invented all religion, basing one's moral values on humanity could be argued to be a higher moral structure than any one religion.

Religion has value. But a non-believer sees the value of religion as a social one, bringing people together so they can help each other, and bring a moral center to their lives.

scmathisen, why would you think that atheists have no belief structure? Did no one ever tell you that there is no such thing as a vacuum in nature? Everyone has a set of beliefs and values. An atheist's or agnostic's set of values just does not include a higher being, is all.

And please don't forget that our prisons are full of Christians, and that many of the bloodiest Mafia dons regulary went to church. Religion has nothing to do with morality, and vice versa.

In my experience, people who base their ethical choices on reason rather than religion treat others better, more consistently, than those who profess to follow some dogmatic "moral" code handed down by some religion. The unchurched treat people decently because we believe it's the right thing to do, not because we crave rewards and/or fear punishments.

On the point of the story, conservative religion is one of the most reliable predictors of elevated teen birth rates:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

(same goes for infidelity and divorce rates)

I stand corrected. They do have a belief structure that is far more complex and difficult to maintain. I failed to think of that when I was making my comment.

Also you wrote: "

And please don't forget that our prisons are full of Christians, and that many of the bloodiest Mafia dons regulary went to church. Religion has nothing to do with morality, and vice versa."

Well, the prisons are also full of lots of other belief structures as well. I would like to differentiate between people that have religion or go to church and people that believe in and have a living, vital relationship with the God that created the universe. Most people tend to lump all of them together. They are not the same. Going to church does not make you any more of a Christian (in and of itself) than going to your local auto repair shop makes you a mechanic.

I agree that religion has nothing to do with morality. Religion is just an outward form, a lifestyle choice. It will not and cannot change the person on the inside and that is where the moral base is. Someone once said "It is what comes from inside that defiles you. For from within, out of a person's heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you."

An outward form of religion (or the lack of it) cannot change the heart.

scmathisen: as long as you neither believe nor perpetuate the myth that people without belief in the supernatural are inherently less ethical than those with such beliefs, you and I have no conflict. If you think belief in God is necessary in order to be a good person, we've got issues.

As to what you believe happens to us after death, I'll take that up with you in a few hundred years. Or I won't.

Dave in NM: It seems to me that the correlation between conservative religion and increased teen birth rates is spurious. Religiously conservative pregnant teens are less likely to seek abortion. This is probably also a factor in the increased divorce rates... the religious conservatives are more likely to get married (earlier) rather than cohabitate.

bsdetector, I was working in a psych hospital in the 80s and drug use DID NOT GO DOWN. In fact, it went up.

You need to do some real research before you use that "bulls*it" detector of yours.

"I know you are but what am I!"

Pointing out that somebody is full of hate doesn't make Dave (or me) full of hate. It means we can see when somebody is full of hate.

I can point out that somebody is wearing a blue suit. This doesn't mean that I'm wearing a blue suit. I can point out that somebody is standing on a street corner screaming lunatic obscenities. This doesn't mean that I am standing on a street corner screaming lunatic obscenities.

@scmathisen-no, he was not being hateful, he's RIGHT. Abstinence only sex ed does nothing more than create ignorance, and then these kids wonder why they have an STD, or got their girlfriend pregnant. Face it, most people are going to have sex before marriage, so you might as well educate them about it as soon as you can.

scmathisen, to tell the truth is not hateful. The fact that the repugs and right wingers have been keeping the teen birthrate high by insisting upon abstinence only in sad and disgusting, but even sad and disgusting truths must be told.

isis-1618599 wrote:

"@scmathisen-no, he was not being hateful, he's RIGHT."

I disagree. When you stoop to calling other people names because they disagree with you or just have another point of view, that is a form of hate. You may disagree if you like. But, that is what I see.

When you stoop to calling other people names because they disagree with you or just have another point of view, that is a form of hate.

What names did I call the uneducated right-wingers?

even american catholics ignore the pope now.

even american catholics ignore the pope now.

Then why do they keep forking over big dollars every Sunday that make their way to Rome to support this ancient cult?

because they believe it's the only way they will get to heaven

OH, NO!!! I had forgotten his holy popeness and all of his hangups with what we're discussing.

Do you think he reads Newsvine? Because if he does, it is ruining the Texas-OU football game for him!

Anathema, when you paint all people of faith with the same brush you become as guilty of intolerance as those whom you hate. I am a Christian, yet I believe in sex education that incorporates teaching about contraceptives into the curriculum. I also support a great number of liberal causes and I keep my faith private for the most part, unless I am forced to defend it. I do not support the Republican party and I am pretty left wing in my views. i am a stuanch believer in the separation of church and state and I believe in tolerance for all people regardless of race, color, RELIGION, gender, or sexual identity. Please do not lump me in with the radical right because I believe in something higher than myself, go to church (albeit in a very liberal denomination) and pray. We are not all the same.

No, but it makes you an enabler. You still support the lie that causes pain and harm to many people.

Toasty McGrath...that was a low blow. I am also of a very similar background and belief as Vince, and my faith has helped many starving, homeless families around the world and in our community. What have you ever done for your community or needy people?!!!!

I'm not saying you can't be a good person AND an enabler. Just that if you're a religious person, you are indeed giving legitimacy to a dangerous belief system.

I see both sides. Toasty, I agree with you that religion itself is evil and destructive, and that its practitioners are unwittingly feeding a giant horrible machine, but I also commend people like Vince and Ian, whose faith does not get in the way of their goodness. Faith, when personal and not part of a corporate religious entity, does no harm unless it is personally twisted into hate. I think Vince and Ian deserve no recriminations from the likes of us.

And on the point of the article, they favor reality-based sex ed, so that officially makes this post on-topic...

Anathema-345001 Wrote

"Religion is a bane-it is not based in reality."

I could not agree more. I am not arguing for "Religion". Read my other comments you will see that.

Toasty, I'm not an enabler for following what I believe to be Truth. The world is a diverse place full of diverse opinions. My opinion about the existence of a higher power is no less valid than yours that there is none to me it is no less true. That is what I'm talking about being as intolerant as the religious right (which is neither). Both of you instist that yours is the only point of view that is legitimate, that everyone else is wrong, and yours should be the only point of view that is permissible. I have friends who are religious fundamentalist and friends who are agnostics. I tell myself both groups are good people with whom I happen to disagree with on certain topics.

C NJ Mom 1, thanks for the compliment for Planned Parenthood. I've served on the board and I've been a volunteer for years.

The services that we provide are invaluable and especially to girls like Leticia! What a heart-warming story that her mother shared with us.

I agree. I am a person of faith and believe in teaching about contraceptives. All the morality in the world can't abrogate millions of years of evolution. (Yes I believe in evolution also). In this case it is not about someone's perception of "right" and "wrong;" it's about what works and what doesn't work.

Rick Perry here in Texas did pretty much the same thing.

What's wrong with abstinance only sex ed? It worked well for the Palins. Briston is now on dancing with the stars.

lol

I knew that Pawlently was awful but I didn't know he would do something so backwards today.

RickyPrettyBoyPerry, Texas, has done pretty much the same thing. At least the city of Austin works against the ignorance of the right.

Good luck with that one, when you've got Axe using Jamie Pressly to tell young men they have a special product to wash their "balls" or teenagers that if they spray on their cologne girls will take their clothes off. How about KY pushing their "big moment" gel for women. And we can't ignore Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra telling old guys to keep their "chin" up. Look at all the "glossies" at the supermarket check out stands pushing sex in your face. Sounds like the old 60's motto: "if it feels good, do it."

Except for the fact that this is not a Christian theocracy, but rather a secular republic. Our government is accountable to the Constitution and to the will of the people not the Bible or your beliefs about God. It is the governments job to try to reduce teen pregnancy not promote your morality. The Founders of our republic deliberately created a government devoid of religious entanglements. There is no mention of "God, Jesus, the Bible, Christianity," etc. in the Constitution. It also specifically prohibits religious test as a condition for running for office and guarantees the separation of church and state. If this were not enough, there is the Treaty of Tripoli signed in1797 by then President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the senate. Article 11 specifically states "The United States is not a Christian nation." Therefore, what supposedly is or is not the will of God does not enter into the equation on any matter of public policy, sex education included.

God designed marriage? I thought Eve was a "helper" because it wasn't good for man to be alone. Of course, in the next breath, God is talking about "leaving father and mother" when no such creatures existed, so there's reason for some confusion....

Seriously, hallelujiah to this new approach. It's as if we have been floundering in the Dark Ages. This is a concrete step that will make everyone's lives better, healthier, and bring honesty to the dialogue about sex in the new millenium. The poster above who said teachers didn't abide by the "abstinence only" rule -- they did, or they were out of a job.

As for the other programs -- teens in our community -- and the community itself -- are already benefitting from the advent of this funding. (We were part of the trial program.) This is money well spent, and sane leadership. A little at a time, we are making progress. Now go vote! (Early voting has already started in some states.)

I wonder why "god" made sex enjoyable at all then? He (can't be a woman for this one) really screwed that up. Pun intended.

Now, if sex was painful, people would only go through it for the sake of having children and not all that recreating. I cannot believe how stupid religion makes people. How do you even sit at a keyboard and type out the letters?

We used government money to propagate the ignorance of abstinence only, so it only seems fair to use government money to fix the mess that caused. Besides, with fewer unwanted pregnancies there are fewer unwanted children on welfare. Fewer unwanted children growing up all bitter and turning into criminals. Fewer criminals to keep in the prisons means more tax dollars to spend blowing other countries to kingdom come. Isn't that what you religious people really want? Think this through people!

There is so much wrong with your post, Uh-Duh, that I won't begin to try and analyze it point by point. I will only add to Vince's excellent comment by saying that you have the absolute right to your opinion that your god did and said these things, and I will fight hard for your right to that opinion, but I also expect you to recognize it as an opinion only, and NOT try to make it, or any portion of it, part of the public policy of this great secular nation.

Uh-Duh said "Youth does not see all that is involved and planned parenthood - the killers of 324,000 innocent lives last year ( 90% of their income) - are not the ones to counsel our youth of this country"

You are absolutely lying about Planned Parenthood. Shame on you!

Planned Parenthood does more in one minute than you could do in 5 years to provide rational sex education to millions. I served on the board of directors in OKC for five years and I certainly know more about what we're about than you know.

Planned Parenthood does not raise 90% of their "income" from terminating pregnancies. I have a feeling that you know you're lying about Planned Parenthood. That makes your post all the more despicable. Shame on you!!

I have news for you....... Those Christians will not be participating in any Sex Ed program.

Let's start with Planned Parenthood. You should know that about 5% of their business is abortions. That's 85% less than you allege. The majority of their work is to do with providing affordable pap smears and STD checks, followed by pill prescriptions and *then* followed by pre-natal care. That is, it is far more likely that a woman entering such a clinic is receiving a check up and then advice in avoiding babies, or caring for babies, than she is to be having an abortion.

Secondly, there has never been an argument made that sex, procreation or families are not natural. That would be absurd. The only argument that is being made by the side that supports comprehensive sex-ed is that sex/procreation/families are wonderful, but not always desirable all the time, and that it's the right of every adult to have knowledge about those processes and to be armed with as many tools as they can to control them. Families are good, and no-one can argue with that, but accidental pregnancies don't always make the great family structures that we need to keep this nation strong. Furthermore, I'm not quite sure you can say that God designed marriage. Certainly, 'God' (yours, not mine) or Evolution made it so that a man and a woman come together to make children, but humans put the 'and lived together, happily ever after, no really, forever' spin on it. I'm not quite sure how to intend to make people who don't believe in a god, believe that your God made them as you suggest....?

It's funny that you think this kind of program will push people into having more recreational sex. If anything, it's been shown that comprehensive sex-education delays sex in teenagers and encourages them to be more responsible and thoughtful about it. Furthermore, whether recreational sex is a soul-destroying, morally harmful activity or not is a matter of opinion and either way, shouldn't be forced on kids and what certainly shouldn't be forced on kids is the idea that birth control (AKA STD control) makes a mockery of the intimacy of relations. Why shouldn't we be teaching kids how to be mature, responsible, educated and capable adults, with knowledge as to how to protect themselves and others?

And choose programs with a proven track record also. Imagine that!

Right on, RightOn! !! :-)

Don't you just love it when the "great unwashed" says it best?

The right-winged christian terrorists are good for something!!

One of the losers is the poster named cam977. It is people like cam977 who have no grasp on any rational reality who end up paying for their mistakes.

He/she says "It's part of the reason our 12 year olds think it's o.k. to give a bj in the back of the bus while everyone else watches."

He/she also says "sex education..indoctrination, has no place being taught by the government."

It isn't being taught at home, cam977 knows that, so we need responsible programs like we are talking about here.

Cam, I'll have to bet my truck that the 12 year olds "who are giving blow-jobs in the back of the bus" is NOT learning that from a teacher. That 12 year old is either learning it at home or from their classmates who aren't learning it from a teacher either. So, Cam, where does that find you? Personal responsibility, my friend.

Parents ought to be teaching them that....... and if they're not, that's their fault - I'm sure teachers would appreciate the "please" and "thank you"s, too! but it's not their job to teach your kids some manners.

You know what - you can teach both age-appropriate sexual education and respect for elders and themselves. Why do you think this is an either/or proposition?

And no school is teaching that it's ok to give a bj in the back of the bus. Stop spreading ridiculous propaganda and look at real programs, what they really teach, and what the results really are. Base the choice of what to teach in the schools on what works, not some absurd and untrue propaganda.

I so agree, myopinion -- I would go so far as to say that healthy sexual habits are all about respect -- respect for self, for the other person involved, for the future. And this cover-your-ears-and-hum approach of the past hasn't helped anyone learn that lesson.

The rule for my son was -- if you're in your peer group, say what you want -- but if there is ANY adult within hearing, you use appropriate language. He was taught the most excellent manners, and his teachers -- and every adult he met -- had great respect for him because of that. Definitely has made his life easier.

"taught about" does not equate to "taught HOW"

Well you kind of did say that, or at least imply that. Nevertheless the basis of my post holds true, that teachers can and do teach mulitiple things in school every day, and teaching sex ed does not mean failing to teach respect for others, as you also said.

We can and should increase reading levels of our kids AND teach about sex ed. That's actually what the article said, which you would have known had you bothered to read it - that teaching the latter along with the former is what works.

And your idea of what exactly is being taught to what age kids is a bit off, and does not seem to have any basis in actual facts. I would love for you to provide some actual data to back your assertions up, preferably from a neutral source rather than Glenn Beck or some phony "family values" site.

Going out for a bit but I'll check back later for your sources.

So. . . Sex ed causes high drop out rates? Sex ed keeps kids from reading at a high school level? Jr. high kids are taught what about oral, vaginal, and anal sex? That they exist? Specific techniques? What are you trying to say exactly? By quirk, I had a rather early sex ed course (4th grade), and, of course, all attending students had to have signed permission slips to attend the classes. My mom, would ask what I learned that day in the sex ed class. It was fact based and very clinical (which kept the giggle factor to a minimum). I just don't see how education is wrong.