If you haven't dealt with the public this sounds silly and farcical. I did a six month internship in womens' health and I was amazed at how many 60 year old women were ignorant on basic facts. It is scary enough that the elderly populations HIV rate is actually growing rather fast.

Even I was surprised to find out " how often monogamous normal happily married couples go without sex" As a young woman I thought everyone was doing it 2.5 times a week ( I even assumed my grandparents were) . No one mentioned having babies, breast feeding, children sharing your bed, stress levels ( esp. for men), aging, cholesterol levels, prostate issues, pharmaceuticals, depression could all directly impact your sex life. I really never knew that when I took my marriage vows. I think there should be a refresher course for adults.

This story reminds me of an old joke.

A sexually naive young man was receiving "the talk" from his father on the eve of his wedding. Dad said, "You just put your hard thing where she pees." So, on the wedding night the young man threw his bowling ball in the toilet.

the nothing short of retarded misuse of the Internet

Maybe we are all retards for caring so much about things that we have no control over and thus letting the internet get us upset, and maybe the guy looking at videos of some moron lighting his crotch on fire are genius for enjoying themselves.

Moral relativism is such a tricky thing isn't it?

who's morals? yours, mine or the neighbors. They may all be different, but that doesn't make any of us wrong, because we look at things differently. so yes, moral relativism is a tricky thing.

Many adults in the dark when it comes to sex ed

Well, no big shock. A lot of morons in the US still get all their answers from the BuyBull.

Properly educating about sex and sexuality is very important to having a healthy individual. the only example that is available for understanding sex and sexuality is through pornography which is why it is so widespread. Rather than having curious people turn to such a negative and dysfunctional outlook on sex, healthy education would bring sex to a more meaningful and healthy expression.

The problem here is that some parents strongly feel that ONLY they have the right to teach their kids about sex. They fear that a school might teach values that they do not share. So they oppose the idea of sex education in school. While I am somewhat sympathetic to this fear, it doesn't lead to good public policy because of the many parents that do NOT teach their kids anything about sex (either because they are embarrassed to talk about it or because they themselves don't know much).

In a world with STD (some of which are fatal), we simply can't just assume that the parents will handle it. Too many don't. Sadly, it is often this same ignorance that leads people to push for "abstinance only" education. The data simply do not support abstinance only education. Numerous studies have shown that emphasizing the importance of condoms and teaching how to use them does not lead to more teenage sex. Quite the contrary -- it emphasizes the very real risks associated with careless sexual behavior.

The same mentality that leads some parents to be afraid to talk about sex also leads some to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that teenagers never do it. There is nothing wrong with teaching teenagers to wait AND teaching them about condoms.

Seriously, I might feel better about all of this if it had been stated that they try to emphasize "abstinence" to these old farts. I can say that because I'm an old fart myself. If you've made it to the age of 50 or 60 without learning enough about sex, it's probably best to leave well enough alone. It pretty much disgusts me that 60 year-old women attend dildo parties. If they don't already get it by then, it's a pretty pathetic and sorry situation. There's no making up for lost time.

BTW, I'm not a "believer" or some conservative idiot, so this has nothing to do with my religious or moral views. I just don't view 60 as the appropriate age to FINALLY get sexually adventuresome or curious.

Mom and Dad practised oral sex right in front of us kids when we were growing up.

When Dad would see Mom he would say, "Fornicate You!!!" and Mom would respond with "Fornicate You!!!"

I had to be politically correct to keep from getting banned. Sorry.

I thought I met a nymphomaniac one time...turned out she was just a plain old maniac.

Oh well, I got an education off of that one.

aquatone, WHY NOT?!

I just don't view 60 as the appropriate age to FINALLY get sexually adventuresome or curious.

It's late in life, but why shouldn't they use the time they have left? It's not like they can wait until they turn 15 again. If old people Doing It grosses you out, don't Do It with one (works for me so far).

Another demonstration of people's ignorance is the fact that so many voted for Obama.

grow up dude....

Oral sex is when you think you are superior on the topic of sex and you have the nerve to say so orally.

Really? Just how many adults did you personally talk to that didn't know what oral sex was?

Sounds like someone blowing smoke out an orifice so he can pound on his chest and make ape noises.

Hint: If you have to make up stories to put down others, you're not really cool.

I didn't know much about politics as a child but I distinctly remember that Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. He also smoked marijuana but didn't inhale. Could you define sex?

"hardcore Christian Reich wingers"

A typical, and trite, smear by an intolerant and ignorant hardcore secular zealot.

BTW---I am agnostic.

At least Clinton got us talking about sex. discussions that would have never taken place before ...

As my 70 year old Biology professor said "Just so you guys know [to the class] you didn't invent sex and foreplay, you just changed the names"

"At least Clinton got us talking about sex. discussions that would have never taken place before ..."

Don't know about that. I will say that I never again looked at a cigar in the same way.

People are content with remaining ignorant.

and with remaining intolerant bigots.

Bill in Houston expresses his distaste for that brown-skinned guy when he accidentally discovers The Vine on his nightly Internet porn search.

when I was a tween, I remember thinking that oral sex and dirty talk was the same thing. XD

Sorry bbagot, but I used my vast experience in life, having lived in 30+ different residences, as the basis for my statement. I guess for every opinion we state you are expecting some sort of clinical research testing to go on. Perhaps you have time for that to back your opinion? You don't? Well, I guess we've got a draw then and will have to let others form their own opinions.

spike - looks like you've blown it yourself friend. "A typical, and trite, smear by an intolerant and ignorant hardcore secular zealot." You've "assumed" and we know what follows that. I too am an agnostic but came from a family of far right Christians: my grandmother didn't even know what was getting her pregnant until after her third child. I grew up with these folks and know them well. I speak from experience. Where do you speak from?

Taylor - so true!

Paul - You seem to be the intolerant one.

I didn't know much about politics as a child but I distinctly remember that Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. He also smoked marijuana but didn't inhale. Could you define sex?

Yeah, I can define sex - because after Clinton left office, Bush and Cheney screwed the whole country. That was really bad sex.

"At least Clinton got us talking about sex. discussions that would have never taken place before ..."

Spike: Don't know about that. I will say that I never again looked at a cigar in the same way.

What a shame, spike...looking at a cigar no longer gives you an erection. Get well soon!

"my grandmother didn't even know what was getting her pregnant until after her third child"

What an absolutely ridiculous statement. Did you ask?

"What a shame, spike...looking at a cigar no longer gives you an erection. Get well soon!'

Get a sense of humor---as soon as possible.

Oh, i have one! I laugh at every one of your stupid posts!

Granted, post #2: You have no idea how dumb you are, and you are telling everybody who is reading these comments. You have no idea how many people Know or don't know what oral sex is. I'm not so sure you know what oral sex is. You feel sorry for so many people on so many levels. How would you know. I am going to guess all you have is one level. I feel sorry for you. I hope next time you write a post you think about It more than you did this one.

Spike, to answer your question, no, I didn't ask - my mother told me she learned of this when they were having a discussion about sex. Oops - now who looks ridiculous?

American man, it seems that you are lost on so many levels. First, you need to read the article. The whole reason we're here is because it is discussing the sexual ignorance of Americans in case you didn't notice. Second, from my comments I'm not sure how one would surmise a lack of knowledge about oral sex, unless I touched a nerve with the Reich wing Christian comment and one was lashing out to get even. Not very Christianly of you. Third, I know I feel sorry for people who are ignorant of oral sex because I am thinking it - pretty basic stuff. Almost Des Cartien. Fourth, it seems that if I do have "one level" it is certainly well above yours. Note: to prevent the scraping of knuckles pick your hands off the ground while walking.

I would like to comment on the "Reich wing Christian" remark. First of all, I'm a Christian and I'm 26 years old. I certainly know what oral sex is, and I'm always surprised at the number of people who make false assumptions about Christians. I'm also disappointed in the number of people who generalize Christians. While it's very true that certain denominations refuse to educate about sex and sex-related issues, some do quite the opposite. The church I attended when I was in college regularly held classes for pre-teens and teens about sex-related topics (and no, it was not abstinence-only)...STD's, methods of protection, the sexual reproductive system, different types of sex (i.e. intercourse, oral, anal, etc.), and other topics. Yes, this is one church out of millions, but please do not lump Christians into the same category. There are some people who call themselves Christians simply because they believe in God and attend church when they feel like it. There are others who call themselves Christians who pull ridiculous stunts (like the ones who wanted to protest outside of Elizabeth Edwards' funeral, or the ones who wanted to burn the Quran) which does not represent what the Christian faith truly is. I hope this changes at least one person's viewpoint. I'm not asking you to agree with me...I'm just asking you to respect it.

Leb - I didn't lump all Christians in together. I said the "Reich Wing Christians" which is basically a faction within the church that attempts to instill their rigid values on others, and is highly involved in politics. They attempt to turn back time and are against education and personal rights, including sexuality.

I guess I misunderstood. I'm just trying to eliminate a lot of the inaccurate assumptions out there.

I would like to comment on the "Reich wing Christian" remark. First of all, I'm a Christian and I'm 26 years old. I certainly know what oral sex is, and I'm always surprised at the number of people who make false assumptions about Christians. I'm also disappointed in the number of people who generalize Christians.

Mainstream xians have only themselves to blame for the fact that they are so easily (and often accurately) generalized.

They are not accurately generalized. Yes some christians are like that but MOST are not. The problem is that the ones that are are so extreme and use christianity as an excuse that others think all christians must be like that.

Just like there are extreme republicans and extreme liberals. Noone believes that there can be a middle ground. If I go against something Republican I must be an extreme liberal and so I must believe everything every other liberal believes.

The extreme christians believe in no sex til marriage no matter what, and people not married should not know anything about sex or how to protect themselves in case they decide to do so out of wedlock

The christian that has some rational thought knows that people are going to have sex whether married or not so while we should encourage waiting we should also let them know how to be safe so they dont get pregnant or get an STD

Of course, those two facts are interrelated. The big ugly elephant in the room is religion, which aims to keep people in the dark about the real world, including evolution and, of course, sexuality. Until we get religion far from education and public policy, we should not continue to act surprised when the population is ignorant. Humans are sexual beings. Sex purely for mutual pleasure, at any age and with any gender mix, is good and natural. Anyone who tells you different is not to be trusted.

Judaism 101 on Kosher sex states:

In Jewish law, sex is not considered shameful, sinful or obscene. Sex is not thought of as a necessary evil for the sole purpose of procreation. Although sexual desire comes from the yetzer ra (the evil impulse), it is no more evil than hunger or thirst, which also come from the yetzer ra. Like hunger, thirst or other basic instincts, sexual desire must be controlled and channeled, satisfied at the proper time, place and manner. But when sexual desire is satisfied between a husband and wife at the proper time, out of mutual love and desire, sex is a mitzvah (a good deed).

I so agree, in this country we grow dumber and dumber. Religion is one of the main reasons.

Religion is not what is making people dumber and dumber it is all these dumber and dumber posts on newvine. People are actually starting to believe their own rant.

Aaron, I agree with you on that one.

And Jabba ends up proving the point being made with his post.

@Dave

"Sex purely for mutual pleasure, at any age and with any gender mix, is good and natural. Anyone who tells you different is not to be trusted."

Anyway who says this can not be trusted you sick NAMBLA ****

bbagot if you have children I bet they are either really sexually screwed up or having sex like rabbits and you are totally oblivious to it. I would never trust someone like you around kids. I want my kids to have a HEALTHY appreciation for the joys of sex. Not some screwed up idea about how bad sex is unless you are married. Heck some christians think it is a bad thing even when married. Not that is REALLY screwed up.

bbagot: I should clarify: by "at any age," I meant at any age capable of healthy, responsible sex (seeing as how the article is about sex in the "golden years," not the "crayon years"). Didn't occur to me some perv would take that to mean pedophilia.

Aaron: Thank you for that bit of information. Looking at the evil wrought by religion in the world, Judaism seldom seems to be the culprit. Religions are not all equal, and though I do blame religion, generically, for causing the vast majority of the problems here and elsewhere, Jews get little if any of the blame.

Sandy: EXACTLY. My kids won't be old enough for sex for many years, but when they are, I wouldn't dream of wishing them cold, lonely, celibate isolation until marriage. I want them to be whole, healthy, well-rounded humans, and that means I will want them to have whole, healthy, well-rounded sex lives.

I find it intensely creepy to see Christian fundamentalists attacking the notion of sex for pleasure as wrong, and it galls me to think of how many people are deeply screwed up by that.

Bravo, and well-stated.

@Sandy, and how many Christians do you know that believe sex is a bad thing even when married? Some newspaper clipping somewhere?

I hope you are not teaching your children to be so intolerant that anyone that has a position that is different than yours automatically means they are screwed up and screwing up others. That is indeed sad.

@Dave -- Next time actually say what you mean. If your words are exact mantras used by pervert organizations, it's ok to apologize for your lack of understanding in this area and correct them.

Dave in NM, the humans you describe are not just sexual beings, they are animals. And the vast majority of the problems here and elsewhere are not created by some 'generic religion,' whatever that means, they are created by PEOPLE. Sinful, broken people. People who can take the Bible, or any other missive of love, and turn it into a hate document. True Christian fundamentalists, know that sex was created for pleasure, but that if you take it outside of the context of a marital relationship, you are inviting a host of problems into your life. sherron-teal, your statement has one fatal flaw. The country is becoming less and less religious than it has ever been before. So if it is becoming dumber and dumber as you claim, perhaps the lack of religion has something to do with it.

the humans you describe are not just sexual beings, they are animals.

Um ... human beings ARE animals. What's your point?

Similarly, religions are created by humans, so your point is the same as mine. Humans create religions, religions spread ignorance and non-acceptance; ergo, humans cause our own problems.

As for your point about the US becoming less religious, while that may be true across the whole population, religion is disproportionately represented in education (think the Texas school board), which, in turn, relates directly to the resulting ignorance. Do you seriously deny there is a connection between Christianity and abominations like abstinence-only "education"?

Saying religion is responsible for stupidity is like saying cars are responsible for auto accidents. Religion isn't at fault. People are. I personally know a lot of agnostics that are dumb too so stop blaming religion. When people choose to turn a blind eye to the world and be stupid it's their own fault no matter what their spiritual beliefs are. I know agnostics, atheists, wiccans, pagans and christians that are uptight sexually. They were raised in a cultural taboo not a religious one. Most of their parents were too afraid to talk about either sex or religion.

Religion isn't at fault. People are.

Religion is the invention of people, so you're right that people are at fault, and I'm right that people's creation, religion, is at fault. I'm not talking about being "uptight," I'm talking about being ignorant, and I'm specifically saying that the influence of religion on American public policy is behind the sexual ignorance of Americans.

Are you seriously contending that the "cultural taboo" to which you refer is not, and has never been, influenced by religion?

Does kosher sex involve hebrew national all beef franks or dill pickles? All this sex talk is making me hungry.

bbagot, then you must be living under a rock most of the time. There are many versions of Christianity in the United States, some quite large, that claim any sex that is not used for ONLY procreation is a sin. Heck some religions claim that using a condom is a sin, can anyone say Catholics, because sex is only to be used to create babies and not for pleasure.

Many of these versions of Christianity claim that the PLEASURE you get from sex is caused by Satan to get us to have sex outside of marriage. So any pleasure gained, even while married, while having sex is evil and bad.

You need to know more about what goes on the the religious communities in the US. It's kinda scary and too many of them have control over politicians.

MM evolution DID happen, in seven of God's days.

Of course, each day may have been a millenium to mortals.

And the left over fossils are "by-products" of God's work.

It takes a while to make someone as perfect as YOU.

Think about it.

Saying religion is responsible for stupidity is like saying cars are responsible for auto accidents.

If we got rid of cars there would be no more car accidents. So are you saying that all we have to do to get rid of stupidity is to get rid of religion?

A mortal climbed to the top of the highest mountain and asked god,

"What is a million years to you?"

God replied, "A minute."

"What is a million dollars to you?"

And god replied, "A penny."

The man thought about that and asked, "So can I have a dollar?"

God chuckled and said, "In a minute."

"Many of these versions of Christianity claim that the PLEASURE you get from sex is caused by Satan to get us to have sex outside of marriage. So any pleasure gained, even while married, while having sex is evil and bad."

I was raised southern Baptist, and that's EXACTLY what I was taught. When I suffered a violent sexual assault attempt at age 14, I was also told by my church pastor that I was to blame for it, because I wore makeup and jeans (and my parents were told that they were to blame by extension because they allowed me to engage in such "sinful" behavior.) For those reasons and others, I walked away from christianity at age 18 and I will never, ever go back. So please, spare me the claim that christianity doesn't equate human sexuality with sin. I know better, I LIVED IT!!!!

The problem with statements about Christianity having a negative view of sex is that you treat Christianity as if it were a monolith. Various churches have differing views on sex and sexuality. I'm an Episcopalian and so called sexual "sins" are never mentioned. Some denomination will teach that any and all sexual pleasure, even that derived within marriage, is wrong. Some will teach that sex is for procreation only. Others will teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong but within the confines of marriage is good and wholesome. And then others will take no position on it. I think we can agree that Christianity, as with most religions, frowns upon casual sex for the sake of having casual sex, that it is best within a lcomitted relationship with partners who love and care for one another. I consider myself to be a Christian, I attend services every week and am involved in my church, and yet I believe in evolution and I believe that sex is a good and joyful thing that God created for us to enjoy. I believe that it only becomes wrong or "sinful" when it leads to people getting hurt (mentally, physically, or emotionally). So, when you are throwing around claims about how Christianity views sex remember not all Christians believe the same way. I find it interesting that in the Bible Jesus speaks much more about hypocrisy and pride than he sex. He barely mentions it at all except to say that one should not be unfaithful to one's partner. I think there are more important issues that we can dwell upon other than who is sleeping with whom.

bbagot - no wonder you were offended by my post. You are the embodiment of which I speak. You must lead a miserable life and spread your misery to all around you. Sad.

Dave,

I disagree with your claim that Judaism is less responsible than the other religions. That particular religion has as much negative influence as Christianity and Islam.

I mean, just consider the fact that Jews consider Israel as the only acceptable location because it says so in the Old Testament. At the same time, they have some very restrictive guidelines on how to live, including not mixing things such as cheese and meat. Throughout its early history(B.C), Israel was just as violent in their religious driven wars as any other religion and their disdain for non-Jews was pretty strong.

Many people view Judaism as a more peaceful religion simply because they never had the numbers to create the havoc(in terms of war) that Islam and Christianity had, and the reason they never had the numbers is because they were never big on converting non-Jews

I would disagree with all that you stated. You sound like you have a very limited knowledge of the Jewish people. I feel sorry for you.

Religion is not what is making people dumber and dumber it is all these dumber and dumber posts on newvine. People are actually starting to believe their own rant

Agree, its generally liberals that are making people look dumber and dumber. Well they as a whole seem to be getting dumber and dumber. Probably just the far left ones but they are hard to distinguish.

Far right conservatives are probably in the same field. Its just liberals are always so sure they are right even when wrong. At least a conservative will consider your view then rebut if need be.

Both sides need to be closer to center, not artificially like Politicians do just before the elections. Hard to believe people but that BS every election year.

ectogamit, as a liberal, rarely do I encounter a conservative that "considers my view and then rebuts". It's a rare pleasure, in fact, when I encounter someone that disagrees with me that can discuss the issue without calling me a socialist, a marxist, some 4 letter word, DIMocrat, DUMocrat, or...my personal favorite... LIEberal. I've seen every single one of those insults (and more) here on Newsvine just in the last week.

well these posts all indicate that religion and sex are closely intertwined whether we all see it or not.

could this be because the only sex education or most of it comes from religion and it has done a great job of screwing it up. No pun intended.

The largest indication that we were getting mixed messages is how many leaders of congregations were caught in sex scandals, and for two generations if not three have been concealing this. This actually could have been going on since close to the begining of the old testament, and it has swayed and corrupted teachings, along with that teaching we should not be of knowledge from the apple of the forbidden fruit. Is it all about being a follower and not a leader that this was designed?

The problem with blaming religions, especially Christianity, is plainly laid out by Howitis (3.21) and Vince (3.22). As far as I know, Catholicism is the only branch of Christianity that has ever formally stated that sex without procreation is a sin. Maybe the Mormons do, too, I'm not too familiar with them. The Baptists, Northern, Southern, or Independent, do not. As a group. Individual pastors/priests/rabbis/whatever, though, often make up their own rules that aren't found anywhere in the religion, but sound good at the time. The reason is usually founded on the idea that it's easier to say 'don't do it' than it is to say 'do it right'.

And a much better analogy than blaming cars for car accidents would be blaming cars for human deaths. Cars didn't make human death, and religions didn't make stupidity. There are plenty of deaths not in any way related to cars every day, and there's plenty of stupidity in the world not in any way related to any religions. That said, some cars do contribute to human deaths, and some religions contribute to stupidity. At the same time, though, some cars deter human deaths, just like some religions deter stupidity.

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household. My father is a clinical and forensic psychologist. My mother is a geologist specializing in groundwater contamination and geologic hydrology. I am an aerospace engineer, and devout Christian. My faith has taught me to seek more understanding of the wonders my God has created, which is driven my scientific curiosity since I was a child. The same is said by both my parents.

I deeply mourn when I see religious figures react to scientific claims as if they were snakes. It is not the religion that does this, it is the fear of human beings. Evolution is a theory, a postulation of how things may work. It may be right or it may be wrong, but Christians don't need to fear it. If it is wrong, then science will show it (and has already done so many times). If it is right, then your understanding of the Bible that contradicts it must be wrong. For a better explanation on how that could work than I can give, I suggest a book like Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

The fact that you made it through the educational system with your belief intact is a true testament to education's failure to address CRITICAL THINKING and it's applications.

I would disagree with all that you stated. You sound like you have a very limited knowledge of the Jewish people. I feel sorry for you.

......................................

Takeanna,

You may disagree if you'd like but those are facts. I have plenty of Jewish friends including some in the Israeli army, and the level to which they adhere to the the religious laws differs from person to person. However, the point is that they have as many laws that leads to as much fanaticism as in any other religion.

[Jews] have as many laws that [lead] to as much fanaticism as in any other religion.

Maybe so - they're certainly not without their share of mumbo-jumbo. But the vast difference in my mind is that they don't proselytize, they don't try to convert anyone, and they sure as hell don't try and make the rest of the population (or any subset thereof) conform to their arcane rules and rituals. Jews on school boards aren't going to be the ones on the "evolution is just a THEORY" and abstinence-only bandwagons. Ergo, because they're more-or-less minding their own business, and leaving mine alone, I have no beef with them.

Sure, that whole bit about insisting on starting their new country in the Middle Freaking East has caused its share of problems, but that's getting pretty far afield from the topic at hand.

You see it was not that hard. One throws something out there and immediately people go on the attack. What they should be doing is defending and proving their point. Religion or lack thereof is not the problem, people are the problem. We twist, bend and hammer everything to fit our ideals and then expect everyone else to get it too. Kind of a dopey approach no matter which end of the spectrum one may sit.

Religion or lack thereof is not the problem, people are the problem.

Religion is a problem, and a big one. It's just splitting hairs to say "people" are the problem, not religion, when religion consists entirely of people. Religion is not the only factor making people ignorant and irrational; it's just the biggest factor among many (all of which could be called "people" at the level of abstraction you're employing).

Nuclear weapons aren't the problem, people are the problem.
Whatever...

I think you might be getting it. Ultimatly it is us that defines our behavior. To say that religion made me do it or drugs made me do it or a pink 9 foot bunny made me do it is escaping the reality that the things we do is because we want to do them right or wrong.

I was poking fun at your stupid comment -- so yeah, I get it alright!

Such anger at everything, relax grasshopper have some fun do not take everything so serioiusly. Nuclear weapons are not the problem, now had you said people who use them are dangerous then it might be valid.

A rock lays on the ground for a million years and does nothing suddenly a person picks it up and strikes his friend killing him. Is that the rocks fault.

Poking fun isn't anger. I laugh at idiots. Calm down, punkin! LOL!!

It is nice when we can laugh at our self. I do it a lot. Especially when trying to use that darn sype method on my cell phone. I am the most calm person on the planet. Now how did you know my wife's nick name for me? :)

Religious people like you shelter their kids for many reasons:

1. They're religious fanatics who shove their dogma down their kids' throats, and then as a result, the kids let their religion control what they do with their own bodies, because they've been taught it's "shameful" or "dirty" and that they'll go to HELL! Oh, yeah, hell. Hell is one of the biggest scare tactics that religious nuts love to use....if you can convince people that premarital sex, homosexuality, and masturbation are one way tickets to HELL(muahahahah!), you can control them, and that's what religion aims to do when it comes to sex. I pity the kids of these parents, because they grow up believing that they're "abominations" like Catzenjammer says. They don't realize that they're feelings are normal, and they end up being ashamed of them. Then when they're older, and have gfs or wives, they're to repressed and prudish to do anything. I hope any kids with religious fanatic parents like these are smart enough to educate themselves, and break away from the shackles of all this nonsense.

2. They're afraid to let their kids grow up, so they shelter them from sex. Then when they finally do start things like masturbating, or maybe even having sex, their parents act totally shocked, some get angry. I knew a girl whose mother slapped her and called her a slut, then grounded her after walking in on her masturbating. Well maybe if they hadn't have sheltered them so much, they wouldn't be so shocked. The more kids know about sex and are able to come to their parents, the less likely they are to go out and have sex. But if you don't talk to them, they're just going to go out and discover it on their own, and chances are, they'll be too afraid to talk to you about it, because they know you'll just sweep it under the rug, change the subject, or somehow dismiss it. Don't shelter your kids, people.

When America wakes up and stops being so prudish and uptight, then you won't be gasping in horror when your kid brings home the permission slip for sex ed. I hope the kids who aren't "allowed" to take that course actually look up the information when they're supposed to be "reading quietly" in the library....yeah, if they're smart enough to sniff out the info, they'll be reading all right. When we get rid of this "abstinence only" BS, then kids will be able to actually be taught about sex, and learn all the facts about it, because abstinence works just about as well as trying to float a lead balloon. Go SnipeMe.com, and read the 2007 rant titled Abstinence (Ignorance) only Sex Education, and you'll see what I mean. Kids are going to get curious, and they are going to start experimenting. Better they learn the facts about it now before they actually do end up pregnant or infected.

It amazes me that people who aren't religious pretend to know what the religious are like -- and always in terms that elevate them at the expense of the caricatures they have created.

Get tolerance -- grow up -- let people live their lives now even if they are different than you, not as you wish they were to make your point, but as they actually choose.

And by the way isis-1618599, the original comment you're reacting to was a joke - a stab at Christians. Don't be so quick to jump in the boat.

@bbagot-I'm not pretending anything. I NEVER (got that, never) said that all religious are like that, I'm basing this off of what I've seen so far. Tell me RIGHT NOW where in my post did you see the words "all religious people are like this/that"? Oh wait, you did not, DID NOT, see that, and will not see that, becaue I was not talking about everybody, so you can just quit labeling me as a person who generalizes every damn subject. Stop getting so offended, when you had NO REASON to be. Do not ever tell me to get tolerance again, I mean it.

Just to drill it through your head once more, I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.

@AsiaWall, I knew it was a joke, but I still decided to take on a serious tone. I'm allowed to do that, so you're just following and stating the obvious. Not a big deal though, I see that a lot on here. I thought it was funny, but when you really think about it, maybe you'll see my point, and will STOP saying things like "don't be so quick to jump in the boat" or don't do this or that.

@Isis -- From your writing if there are no modifiers, it comes across as broadly accusing. It would be like someone saying "Americans are serial killers." While it's true the writer never said "All Americans are serial killers", the very notion of the wording tends towards broadly equating the two.

It amazes me that people who aren't religious pretend to know what the religious are like

It amazes me that people who are religious pretend that the rest of the population never went to church, studied world religions, had religious family members or otherwise educated themselves in the various worldviews before choosing one. Not that that should be amazing, I suppose, given the correlation between religion and ignorance.

Well just because something comes off a certain way doesn't mean it was meant to. I'm allowed to take that post, and put my serious opinions up on it. Besides, weren't you the one broadly accusing me of labeling religious people that way? Yes you were.

@Dave -- The proof is in the statements made. I have known those that have had a religious background and chosen to depart from it -- and their statements reflect a knowledge of religious thought that backs up their past experiences. Those who make comments about religion that have little to do with religion itself are obviously coming from a different position.

Those who make comments about religion [who] have little to do with religion itself are obviously coming from a different position.

I'm curious how you can purport to know which is which, in the context of this discussion board. When someone disagrees with you on a religious point, do you think that gives you some insight into the depth of their theological education?

@Dave -- If the position being put forth matches stereotypes that come from modern cultural presentations of what Christianity is instead of that seen within churches themselves then that is a give away. Apart from that I make no particular inferences as to the depth of someone's theological base without further discussion taking place.

I don't know to which "modern cultural presentations" you refer, but I don't give half a hoot what goes on in churches. What matters to me is what goes on in legislatures, city council chambers and school board meetings. To the extent to which a given religion has a "live and let live" attitude toward the so-called "morality" of others, it's benign. To the extent to which a given religion attempts to conform the public policy of a secular nation to its own narrow precepts, it's malignant. It's not a stereotype that fundamentalist Christians are attempting to control what is and is not legal in this country, and what my children are and aren't taught; it's a fact. Whether one is well-versed in one religion, many, or none, is irrelevant. One need not veer off into stereotype to discuss the huge harm being done in the name of various versions of god.

Besides, a person doesn't have to be a master of textiles or an expert in fine linens to be able to tell when the Emperor has no clothes. Likewise, a person doesn't have to have a degree in theology to see how ridiculous and downright dangerous religion can be.

@Dave -- I see almost the opposite occurring. As long as there is a "live and let live" attitude, I am fine. But when small groups decide through attempted legislation that they will force a viewpoint upon others, then I am against that.

@ToastyMcGrath, I agree with you completely. Religion is not right about everything, and for the religious people who back up everything with it, they are wrong.

@bbagot-before you pounce on me again, I was not talking about all religious people.

As long as there is a "live and let live" attitude, I am fine. But when small groups decide through attempted legislation that they will force a viewpoint upon others, then I am against that.

Thought you might say that. As long as your point is the same as mine (i.e. that one group shouldn't be allowed to affect what all others are and aren't allowed to do, or what their children are and aren't taught), we're in agreement. Of course, if your point is that "small groups" just want the same rights as everyone else, without hurting or imposing restrictions on anyone in any way, and that that is somehow "forcing a viewpoint" on you, then I will resist your position at the ballot box and elsewhere as long as it persists, because it's hurtful, narrow-minded, mean-spirited and deeply repugnant.

Catz! Are you for real??????? Even "homersexality" [spelling aside]? I think you might do well to spend some time in the library, and enlighten yourself....

You guys all crack me up. Catzenjammer was being completely facetious and he bagged you guys with one wellplaced shot! Good job catz, you certainly stirred the pot here LOL Kudos!

Soug - no, he's not for real. Obviously.

I am not quite sure what you think you know regarding people who are right-wing and their attitudes about sex. But, no, all you have to do is look at Bristol Palin to see that the religious right does not actually frown on sex before marriage.

The religious right has no problem any more with unwed mothers or illegitimate pregnancy--they encourage children to be "abstinent," though by putting Bristol forth, they are also showing that they aren't going to judge or exclude if the children are not "abstinent."

They do, however, judge and exclude and ridicule and encourage people to violence against both homosexuals and anyone who is in favor of abortion rights.

These same people dress their little 4-year-old girls like hookers. They are, actually, pretty delighted when their children have heterosexual sex because, Praise the Lord, the children are not homosexual.

And, by the way, I don't appreciate your using my home dialect (and, yes, I do speak just the way that you wrote your passage--talk to me in a WalMart, and I will ask you to pass me "some of them thar ker-its")--as though it is ignorant. Have someone copy down your dialect some day--you will be very surprised to find out that you do not speak the way that I am writing at the moment. A spoken dialect is just a spoken dialect--it does not indicate a person's intelligence level.

Have a blessed day ;-)

Interesting how the Palins always come up --- when the topic is about "stupidity"

How is it that a story about sex ed turns into a complete rant against all religion? And how is it that people who claim they are in favor of tolerance exhibit no tolerance at all towards people who have religious beliefs? There was a story not long ago about which states were the most tolerant and one of the criteria used was percentage of the population that believed all religions led to heaven. In other words, tolerance was measured by the percentage of people who tolerated the beliefs of others rather than insisting their beliefs were the only correct ones. So how is it that people here who demand tolerance have no tolerance themselves for anything but their own view?

To all who have been pontificating over my original post: you can have your chains back. I've yanked them enough.

Off topic

anyone know why I cannot copy and paste?

kedbob you just made my day!

I don't see why people argue about religions when NO ONE is going to change their minds about their beliefs from an online post.

bbagot said

"@Dave -- Next time actually say what you mean. If your words are exact mantras used by pervert organizations, it's OK to apologize for your lack of understanding in this area and correct them."

bbagot it is strange how you know all the "exact mantras used by pervert organizations". I guess you must spend a lot of time perusing those sites to have memorized their mantras. I am guessing it's for research, but then again the perverts claim the same thing.

Gee, with attitudes like these, no wonder nobody's getting laid.

To all who have been pontificating over my original post: you can have your chains back. I've yanked them enough.

Catz, i've been laughing my butt off over this. Thanks! Granted, there are times all of us go headlong into stuff that hits a nerve but your initial post was pretty transparent (I thought) and I was pretty amazed at how strongly people reacted. Guess, you hit a nerve after all.

bbagot it is strange how you know all the "exact mantras used by pervert organizations"

I was wondering that, too. Then he employed the "best defense" and went off on me, as though I was supposed to know these mantras by heart before posting. Wasn't until later I had the "now wait a minute" moment, wondering how he got so familiar with the Pervert Code. I agree - must have been "research" (wwnn).

How is it that a story about sex ed turns into a complete rant against all religion? And how is it that people who claim they are in favor of tolerance exhibit no tolerance at all towards people who have religious beliefs?

Thats like telling someone that because they hate Hitler, they are intolerant. Get real.

Ignorance is indeed a choice, but it's often a choice that's made for, not by, the ignorant. Parents are teachers by definition and by default, and need to acknowledge that their kids are sexual beings. That doesn't mean encouraging profligate promiscuity; quite the contrary, it means encouraging responsibility and careful decision-making. But unless those messages are rooted in fact (e.g. that humans are sexual beings, that some humans are attracted to people of their same gender), kids will disregard them. The library and the Internet do kids no good if they're walled off from them and given only misleading and incomplete information. Ignorance is a choice, but so is combating it. We need to make that choice as a society, and simply not allow the choice of ignorance to be made for our kids.

The problem with the Internet is that too many people aren't trained to critically evaluate sources of information. Students are demanding that they should be allowed to use Wikipedia as a primary source. That's to be expected. They don't know better, but I'm amazed at the number of adults who support them.

-not for children... they can't be expected to teach themselves like that!

@Toby-Well, if their parents are too uptight or embarrassed to have the talk with their kids, what else are they supposed to do? Besides, who said they have to teach themselves. They can ask their health teacher, the school nurse, and they are capable of teaching themselves. To say "they can't be expected to teach themselves like that!" is extremely offensive, because you're selling these kids short, all because of their age. You'd be suprised how much MORE kids know about these things then their parents.

Well they opften don't know where to look and in many communities the adults they would turn to are as ignorant as them.

So yea it's hard for kids to tech themselves, they need knowledgeable adults around. The thing about ignorance is, you are often ignorant of it.

@isis yes,

You'd be suprised how much MORE kids know about these things then their parents.

and in their infinitely wiser minds about their new found appetite for desire, satisfation, and self-impugnity to reach their choice of ecstasy with any partner they choose, These kids have so much "more" knowledge than their parents, that they think they can be better parents at 14 than those dumb parents who struggle at 35+. Let's hope they know how to prevent HIV once they capture it, because they are wiser than those older parents. Lets hope they can stop the absentee (why buy the cow when you get the milk free 10x a night) parents to their newly born children.

Seriously ISIS, I want to know. Do you know more now about the act (fornicating) and the emotion (being in love) and the (responsibilty) of having these relationships than you did when you were a teenager, Or is it all just about how you can feel that next earth shaking toe tingling body wrecking orgasm?

Sex education is not just about the act. It should be about the entire embodiment of the emotional, physical, spiritual relationship.

Yeah, those teenagers are so much smarter than us adults, cuz we adults were so much smarter than our parents. um NOT.

Most libraries (that I've been to, at least) don't have an Adults section. They always have a Kids section, though. I think it's age-ism!
:p

@A Fo5-Only the kids who are idiots think they will be great parents at 14. But adults really DO underestimate the knowlege of kids, and they DO sell them short. Just admit it. I never said that sex was just about the act, of course it's emotional as well. Besides, now I WANT TO KNOW: WHEN DID I SAY THAT THESE KIDS THOUGHT THEY WERE SMARTER THAN THEIR PARENTS??? I didn't, did I? No. The reason kids have to learn these things for themeselves is because their parents refuse to teach them. They refuse to teach them because they are ASHAMED, and EMBARRASSED, and they feel DIRTY talking about it. From what I've seen, the parents aren't ignorant, just uptight. It has NOTHING, ZERO to do with being smart, so get off that little smartness thing. You're talking as if you have this mindset:

Teenagers are too young and stupid to know what love is. They're just physical, lustful animals with no conscience about sex.....you just assume that because they're young, that they are still incapable of experiencing the emotion that comes with it. Wrong wrong wrong.

As a matter of fact, I do know more about it now. Love making is when two people share the same emotions of love, and have that same bond with each other. Sex is just a physical act for physical satisfaction.

Or is it all just about how you can feel that next earth shaking toe tingling body wrecking orgasm?

What the hell was that supposed to mean? That I'm just some hungry sex freak who always needs to get her rocks off? Because that sure as hell is what it sounds like. I've said it before, I'll say it again: WATCH YOUR MOUTH!! I do NOT appreciate being labeled as some sort of orgasm dependent whore/slut, and I will NOT be labeled like that. Watch your big mouth with me, and don't ever make that assumption again. Show some respect. People, am I the only one to take offense at such a comment? I hope not.

@Isis, I'll give you a fun quote:

Princess Leia: "Why you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf-herder"
Han: "Who is scruffy looking"
(Leia Exits)
Han: (to C3PO) Must've hit a nerve to get her all riled up like that.

ok off the humor back to the topic:

I don't care to be politically correct. I don't know you personally, nor would I assume a blog reply would be directed at you intentionally. I have studied the alternative facts to teen pregnancy, abortion rates, std rates, mortality, and suicide rates amongst teens, who can't handle the pressures WE as a society believe its ok to let them run rampant and free to do whatever the hello they please.

THAT IS NOT OK.

The more complete their education (as you might have seen in the other short blogs I have written within this article) in the TRUTH not the lies of sex for the act of sex. Listen if you will, to just one hour of Dr. Drew (generated from KROQ in LA) and you will hear just a small sample of how unprepared teens are. Individuality aside, there are very few, and unique teens that know how to handle those pressures better than adults.

The trend in states that offer Some form of Health Education (labeled as Sex Education) Is showing improvement in the areas of STD prevention, teen pregnancy, and other related issues. We have to take it that step farther, so that we won't have to teach adults (as seeded in the original article) how to remain faithful and satisfied with their partner.

Instead of rambunctious animals, ready to move on to the next person to satisfy their needs, when in fact, they are the one's who have control, If only they knew better how to satisfy their partner as well as how to speak to their partner to teach them to satifsy each other. That satisfaction only comes when the partners satisfy each other emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and physically. Just ask anyone who has been married/partnered with the same person over decades, not days.

OK good point, most teens aren't ready to deal with the consequences, that doesn't mean their parents should have not had the talk with them. It's proven that teens that can come to their parents with these types of problems are actually less likely to have sex so early, while the ones who are too afraid to ask questions will go find out on their own. I say, if they're protected, and if they truly believe that they have that kind of a connection with the other person, they should be able to have sex, without people being so ageist. Too many people are quick to assume that teenagers are just a bunch of freaks with no purpose other than to acheive PHYSICAL satsifaction only. That is not true. Teens are perfectly capable of feeling emotional and physical aspects of sex, but adults just won't believe it. They're all stuck with that "You're too young to understand." attitude. So in other words, they're too stupid to understand right? Wrong. We give so many teens less credit than their worth, always underestimating them, and selling them short. It's a damn shame, and that's what's wrong here. Once that stops, maybe adults will be willing to really teach them about sex.

That is what we can hope for, that the more we talk, the more we know, the better we can prepare them to make the better decisions, to make the wiser choices of whom they wish to be In love with, and not just infatuated with. Women that protect their virtue tend to have stronger life long relationships than those who don't,

This article examines the relationship between premarital sexual activity and the long-term risk of divorce among U.S. women married between 1965 and 1985. Simple cross-tabulations from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth indicate that women who were sexually active prior to marriage faced a considerably higher risk of marital disruption than women who [sic] were virgin brides. A bivariate probit model is employed to examine three possible explanations for this positive relationship: (a) a direct causal effect, (b) an indirect effect through intervening "high risk" behaviors (such as having a premarital birth or marrying at a young age), and (c) a selectivity effect representing prior differences between virgins and non-virgins (such as family background or attitudes and values). After a variety of observable characteristics are controlled, non-virgins still face a much higher risk of divorce than virgins. However, when the analysis controls for unobserved characteristics affecting both the likelihood of having premarital sex and the likelihood of divorce, the differential is no longer significant. These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g., the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect.

Joan R. Kahn, Kathryn A. London, 'Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce', Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 845-855

That however does not preclude those same teens being taught, or not taught previous sex education. It has been my personal observance, that women who "hold out" and wait until they are ready, make the men who are worthy work that much harder leaving those who are in it for the quick hit flaking out, thus providing a more stable foundation for a relationship.

Unfortunately your point that adults will or should become willing to really teach them, means that a lot of the confused adults, who never knew thier own sexuality in the first place, will hide from the discussion thus failing the training.

Teach a man to fish, he will never be hungry, Give a man a fish, you will have welfare.

Did you even read the article???

Looks like your a pretty good example of what the article was written about.

Relax "Everybody has sex, everybody does!" Brisben said. "It's part of what happens in life, and so if you don't take responsibility and you don't ask these questions, it's going to continue to be the ugly elephant in the room."

Just because someone is young doesn't mean they can't enjoy sex too.

ah, I see someone let the trolls out again.

Why not Andrew. I would much rather kids be taught about having fun with sex than being taught about how everyone should have a gun and how to use it.

It depends upon what you are referring to when you say gun...

Andrew, your reading comprehension skills appear to be as abysmal as many adults' sexual educations.

LOL 11madness...thanks for the chuckle ;)

Sandy, there's one huge difference. We can take guns away from kids when we're done teaching them. We can't do that with sex.

Thanks C Smith. that's the argument that the religious use --- their answer is, that it is best to be stupid about the human body, than it is to be educated about it.

This is what that guy in Arizona that shot Gabby was trying to say, but they have him down as CRAZY. Did you view his connection to his last statements on YOU TUBE. If you change a constentant and create a new Language (like Kling-on in Star Trek) which was created from English language. And everybody learns it, the persons whom do not get taught are illiterate to the new language.

Debra, are you talking to the aliens again? Time to adjust the tin-foil hat.

Debra, it is clear that you have so much trouble communicating in the language that you are attempting to use that you would be more effective in Klingon. Do you not realize that "whom" is an objective pronoun and cannot be the subject ot "do not"? And what is a "constentant?"

They don't have him down as crazy, he's @!$%#ing insane. Occasionally maniacs might say something profound, then they go and shoot Congresswomen. The one has a way of negating the other.

Not to worry! A Christian friend tells me that 1/3 of the population will be "raptured" any day now.

Just out of curiosity, Tom, do you think we will be "raptured"?

Chuck, your point contradicts itself. Sex and sex education are not the same thing. If people were educated about sex, it would not be leading to the production of children who can't be adequately cared for, and population growth that can't be responsibly supported. It's no coincidence that the rates of teen pregnancy and STDs in the US correlate to the areas where sex education is useless or nonexistent.

isis-1618599-8.2- I am told anything is possible, as long as it happens.

Dave in NM-8.3- It has been shown that when women are educated to their fullest potential that birth rates go down.

If all the Christians are "raptured," will they go away then? Wow...that's enough to make a loyal agnostic want to believe in the JC guy. "Come and get them, please!"

More from Dave, above. IF the sex education improves sex in those past child-bearing age (read the article), it won't lead to more population. Tom,PA is entirely right. Better educated women have fewer accidental births. There is a direct relationship between national poverty rate and birthrate, also between birthrate and infant mortality. The 'developed" countries are the ones that have brought down their population increases. Unfortunately for world population, those developed countries are helping the developing countries bring down their infant mortality rates and not their rates of population growth.

You can complain all you want about China's draconian measures to stem their population growth, but before you do, go to your friendly library and ask your friendly librarian to find you Science, 1968, Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons.' It is one of the most intelligent articles on population management ever written.

Tracey, sadly it's only the true Christians that will be taken. You'll still have to deal with all the loons that worship the Jesus Action Figures (now with Kung-Fu Grip!) and think that He Who Dies With The Most Public Religious Recognition Wins. You'll miss all the reasonable voices. And then you'll realize just how many of us there were.

;) Toys are a good thing

and they tend to cause less trouble...

Haha I love it. Toys are awesome.

Unitarians rock.

Agreed :)

My son is 13 and taking part in an OWL class this year. We've done our best as parents to educate him but there are just some things you don't want to talk about with mom or dad.

You seem to be equating ignorance with stupidity. The problem isn't people's capacity to take in and process information; it's the relative quality of that information that's the problem, and that relates, in turn, to the institutionalized ignorance that's rampant in American society. Lacking information doesn't make you stupid, a point that is illustrated by the vast hunger for information among people such as those mentioned in the article.

The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance is curable.

sweet

Really? We got NASA Sunday here. The Hubble pictures were sweet.

Cause women are cattle.

Capt Tripps, IF you EVER get any, you probably have to pay for it. Because you have zero-minus respect for women. Why any woman would ever want to have anything to do with a man who thinks women are cattle is beyond me.

I'm pretty sure Capt Tripps wasn't really equating women to cattle, so calm the heck down. He was commenting on the fact that hockeypuck seems to think because they saw lots of girls parts and pulled a calf out of it's mother that he thinks he knows anything about sex education.

Which is just silly, because somehow delivering cattle makes him qualified to make love to a woman. If you treated me like you treated that cow I'd smack your face and have you out the door in a flash.

the BuyBull thinks women are cattle... big shock!

@phyllis well if you buy bull it would most likely be bovine, or cattle, but the bulls are generally the males. if you had participated in the classes this article is talking about , you would be well on your way to be
CALF ing a good time instead of reading about it.

Jockmama - look up the definition of irony. We'll give you a minute because, as a woman, you'll need to find a man to work the computer for you.

(that was a joke, btw)

Seriously tho, come on now, read more react less, I was obviously being facetious.

Actually you are completely and totally wrong. You see more sexual abuse in countries where sex is repressed. Take a look at any country that represses sexuality through religion and they will have far more sexual assaults on women and women getting KILLED by men. It's rampant in Muslim controlled countries. And has been in christian controlled countries through the centuries as well.

You want to see less sexual abuse go to countries that are more sexually liberated than the US. When you repress something like sex it eventually has to find an outlet and it is usually in the form of sexual violence against women by men.

Sex for personal gratification is a GOOD thing as it relieves tensions and people are overall much happier. I have seem people who don't have sex for personal gratification be some of the most screwed up people in the world and they are usually religious people too.

WOW, that's a lot of unfounded accusatory statements! Do you have ANY articles/statistics/sources to back up any of your outrageous statements? Of course women are repressed in the Muslim world, that is part of their doctrine. Not true of Christianity! Christianity preaches sex within the right context. There is an entire book of the Bible about love and erotic sex. And people who use other people to basically masturbate them are NOT happier and more fulfilled, that is the craziest thing I've ever heard. There are a million studies on how married people are happier and more secure than people who are just dating or living together. Sex is more than just a physical act, which is why it's such a huge deal, such an incendiary topic, you can't reduce it, and there are consequences when we try.

there is still a part of the population that truly understands that relationships are MUCH more than just personal gratification, which is what sex AND relationships today have largely become. THAT is why we see so much abuse and deviance.

The term "personal gratification" is the problem with your statement. Anyone who doesn't view sex as a matter of mutual gratification is just plain doing it wrong.

people who use other people to basically masturbate them are NOT happier and more fulfilled

Exactly. Failure to grasp the mutuality of sex is behind most, if not all, of the harmful sexual deviance in the world. Sex between consenting, mature partners is never deviant if it's based on mutual gratification.

Asia it's not hard to find this information and you will find Christianity mirrors the Muslim world if you really open your eyes when it comes to sex.

And the only incendiary part of this are people like yourself who seek to repress sexuality and get everyone to conform to a limited and slightly twisted view of what sex is based upon religion. You can trace ALL of the resistance to this to religion. Anyone that says otherwise is lying through their teeth or purposfully ignorant of the realities.

Sandy, you are right about sexual violence. Moreover, homosexuality is far mor prevalent in Islamic countries than in Europe or (!) the United States.

@Sandy -- Asia gave you some pretty good information to consider -- and you simply discarded it.

Everyone has a viewpoint on sexuality. Everyone puts limits. No one uses the animal kingdom as their sole guide. The difficulty you have with religion is that it does not match your particular view -- hence it is wrong. You want to do the same thing that you say bothers you about religion -- force your viewpoint as the one that is taught and followed. I don't buy it.

@sandy I will give you the information you need. HIV and Africa. They are definitely not repressed sexually, and have no laws, but the abuse of children including 8-12 year olds is normal for the "men" of the tribes. This shows actually just the opposite of your point that abuse happens less in free society as compared to educated society

Umm, Sandy, you kind of missed the point. Those groups that treat women as property are still treating a relationship with them as about personal gratification. The point is that education doesn't change this, it only changes the way it happens. You see relationships founded on personal gratification in the Modern Western World, in repressive tribal societies, and everywhere in between. But when relationships are about relating mutual benefit and growth, you don't see it at all, no matter how educated or uneducated the people are.

bbagot ,, if referring to me this is no made up story,i saw a cow and bull before i could make a hardon.we don`t need girls telling us about sex.they can,t help mom with dishes cause they are to smart and then breed the weekest bull.

My apologies, the reference was to an earlier post and not meant to be applied to yours.

thank you and best wishes

we don`t need girls telling us about sex.

Yeah, we do. Unlike cows, girls have wildly varying tastes, and while we can learn to satisfy them by trial and error, it's much more productive when they just tell us what works for them. Of course, since you seem to equate women and cows across the board, I have to acknowledge you're probably just jerking our collective chain.

you're probably just jerking our collective chain.

Nuthin' wrong with a little chain jerking. Especially if you're out in the country with all those cows.

Someone has to as the parents are never going to step up and be good parents in this arena. Most kids get their sexual skills as teenagers experimenting with other teens. So who is teaching them? They are being self taught and people like you wonder why they are so screwed up or pregnant. I would rather Clinton teach sex ed than most parents. He might keep them from being screwed up in the head unlike their parents.

it`s top story cause i just resonded to you,my bad or whatever you want to call it.

love you sandy,gotta trust a person that speaks from experience.bill told a complete lie like i would do in front of my mother,i have more respect for my mother than clinton had for americans.

Sandy, Missouri

Your posts are so ignorant and misinformed that you must be using your own sexual experiences as an example of what you believe is the 'norm'!

Children are being taught sexual education in elementary schools! Yes, that's right! Reproductive systems, bodily functions, male, female anatomy, stages of pregnancy...etc! Most teenagers I know are better educated than YOU and ARE NOT "experimenting with other teens" to educate themselves about sexuality!

The adults I know are ALL willing listeners/teachers when it comes to their children's questions or concerns. You see, the schools may teach the mechanics, but the parents must also teach the responsibilities of sexuality. That's likely over your misinformed head.

This article has obviously missed the opportunity to point out that it's not unusual for older adults to be misinformed about the 'mechanics' of sexuality as it wasn't taught and/or talked about - to the extent it is today - a generation or so ago!

Children are being taught sexual education in elementary schools! Yes, that's right! Reproductive systems, bodily functions, male, female anatomy, stages of pregnancy...etc! Most teenagers I know are better educated than YOU and ARE NOT "experimenting with other teens" to educate themselves about sexuality!

I call BS. It's true that there are parts of the country where kids are receiving useful sex ed, but there are just as many places where abstinence-only "education" still holds sway, and/or where parents are allowed to opt their children out of the instruction. Parents do have primary responsibility, but not everyone is as fortunate as the children of ALL the adults you know. Denying the vast amount of ignorance in the US is, itself, profoundly ignorant.

That's likely over your misinformed head.

There's no need to insult Sandy. She (/he?) has been right on the money for this discussion, but even if it were otherwise, there's no call for ad hominem attacks here.

JustForStarters you are whoa-fully ignorant of what you speak. There aren't that many states anyone that offer funding for sex education. There are only 20 states that REQUIRE sex ed if some kind. Many of those the only kind of sex education is for abstinence only. And in some of those states that require sex ed there are ways for local school districts to opt out of it.

Most states in the US have no sex ed requirements and offer no money to have sex ed classes. You are completely ignorant of that is happening in the US. Many Republican state legislatures have removed ALL requirements for sex ed and have slashed any funding for those that do have it.

And your statement "Most teenagers I know are better educated than YOU and ARE NOT "experimenting with other teens" to educate themselves about sexuality!" shows that you know absolutely nothing about sex and teenagers in the US. There have been many studies that show you are totally wrong. In studies where children have been asked if they have had sex and when the results are usually around 1 in 4 children between 11-16. The only people who don't want to believe this are Adults that want to stick their head in the sand and ignore the problem like yourself.

In many of these studies the children say their parents never taught them ANYTHING about sex they found out on their own. So don't give me that pie in the sky BS that adults want to be involved because it is totally wrong and not even close to reality.

To: Sandy, Missouri.......

I wish you well. I hope you are not a teacher. I wish you would proof read your post and see if it makes sense prior to hitting the post button. Each state in the U.S. has a different sense of how to introduce sex education, and religion plays a big part in the decision, as does funding. As 'Victorian' as this country is, I saw a Disney made film when I was in the fifth grade in 1955 that taught everything about a girl and her body. Of course that was in progressive CA. It was also a showing a mother accompanied her daughter to after regular school hours. But it was available to all fifth and sixth grade girls. In twelfth grade, in 1961 we were required to attend a mixed class that taught about adult living. There was a chapter about males and females and sexuality. So I am assuming CA has been educating students long before some of the other states. That is a shame.

There was a father who decided to tell his ten-year-old son about "the birds and the bees," so he took the boys aside and explained how babies are made in nature, indicating that people made them the same way. The boy nodded to show his understanding and the father asked him to pass on the lesson to his eight-year-old brother.

The man listened at the door as the older son was relating to the younger one. "Johny, do you know how babies are made?"

"Yeah."

"Well, the birds and the bees get them the same way."

No Sandy...I'll stand by my remarks, thank you. I am not the one "woefully ignorant"! While you and the rest of the so-called 'intellectuals' slam religion as the reason for unwanted pregnancy (because, let's face it, slamming religion is the "in" thing to do these days), you should take a moment from your incessant blathering and do a little research into unwanted pregnancies!

You might start with the fact that most unwanted pregnancies aren't occurring in the age bracket you consider ripe for sexual education. You could also look into the abortion rate, which is the highest amongst women 20-24...NOT teenagers experimenting with each other. Are you still going to blame religion because without the sex ed in schools, people of this age have no clue how babies are made? What then, will you say about the women aged 30-35 who are aborting unwanted pregnancies?

You might also want to discuss which "bible-thumping" states have the highest unwanted pregnancies as opposed to the "liberal" states with the most abortions. You do realize that some women use abortion as a form of birth control, don't you? However, I doubt any of this pertinent information would ease your mind about all this being the fault of religion.

I think we all know that unwanted pregnancies occur for a myriad of reasons and across all races (you should research that as well). It's unfortunate that closed-minded people such as yourself cannot bring themselves to understand the many reasons for this issue and choose to lay the blame solely at the feet of religion - such an easy target!

While there's a ton of info to read regarding unwanted pregnancies, I'll be happy to get you started on the 'enlightenment' you so desperately require; the rest is up to you:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Sex Ed laws by state://www.teen-aid.org/State_Resourses/State_Sex_Education_Laws.htm

Characteristics of Effective Sex Education
Experts have identified critical characteristics of highly effective sex education and HIV/STI prevention education programs. Such programs:

1.Offer age- and culturally appropriate sexual health information in a safe environment for participants;
2.Are developed in cooperation with members of the target community, especially young people;
3.Assist youth to clarify their individual, family, and community values;
4.Assist youth to develop skills in communication, refusal, and negotiation;
5.Provide medically accurate information about both abstinence and also contraception, including condoms;
6.Have clear goals for preventing HIV, other STIs, and/or teen pregnancy;
7.Focus on specific health behaviors related to the goals, with clear messages about these behaviors;
8.Address psychosocial risk and protective factors with activities to change each targeted risk and to promote each protective factor;
9.Respect community values and respond to community needs;
10.Rely on participatory teaching methods, implemented by trained educators and using all the activities as designed.

from ://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=450&Itemid=336

of course the newest ways to find sex ed.//knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/content/going-viral-sexual-health-education-uses-new-media

From what I am reading, not only in the blogs here, but in the 'Sex Ed' category web sites, that we are not really teaching anything but HEALTH ED. How to prevent this, how to stop that, how to safely wear this, of use a contraceptive gel.

@sandy

So don't give me that pie in the sky BS that adults want to be involved because it is totally wrong and not even close to reality.

If you mean parents then you are sadly mistaken, Parents, real men and women, raise their children together, work hard and do more than the best they can to assure a child walks in a safe path

If you mean young people who shacked up got screwed got pregnant and then decided to either live on their own, or in a detrimental relationship with another "Adult" meanwhile not knowing when or if their chosen partner is coming home, then yes I can agree with that statement.

In reality, Sex Education should be complete education (as listed in the 10 steps above) but instead of the Politically Correct version listed. If should be a fact based education on Love, Romance, Fornication, Relationship, Responsibility, Community, Family, and Faith in the individuals belief system. It cant be generic, here joe, jim, suzy, julie, erica, ryan this is a condom, this is a (phallus) this is a (vagina) stick it pull it out be safe, good luck suckers. It has to start with parents (US) and we have to be able to speak to all of it. If you can't, then maybe you personally should stick with abstinence, or the $20 hooker/cigar and not procreate.

i know riverman,she told me to f off.

Because you told her you learned all you needed to know about sex by watching cows?

where do you get this religious stuff from,city people are stupid,religious nuts just clutter things up.

Most of the replies are knee-jerk based on what is fed to them. Where I am from a prominent church put in 228,000 volunteer hours for the mayor's office last year saving the city considerable money in a very tight budget with their efforts -- you will not read that anywhere in the newspapers. You will find any oddity from a "church" of 10 members or less that makes a more "interesting" news story. People convince themselves that what they read is the reality of Christianity without digging deeper -- hence their views.

Attempting to look at American sexual ignorance without examining the obvious sole root cause of it (religion) is like trying to examine highway fatalities without considering the effect of people driving cars.

@Dave -- Communist (atheist) China has a greater degree of sexual repression than anything you will find here. I realize you believe religion is the sole cause for any perceived lack of sexual knowledge, but I'm not sure your contention is accurate.

Communist (atheist) China has a greater degree of sexual repression than anything you will find here.

I am waiting for you to point out the relevance of Chinese sexual repression to my point, about "American sexual ignorance." My point, of course, was about fundamentalist Christianity, which is pretty well irrelevant to any discussion of Chinese public policy. I eagerly await your explanation. Really.

@Dave -- Well it certainly shows that at least in worldwide relevance religion does not directly equate to sexual repression -- atheistic socieities can turn up with the same situation. In America there are more than just Fundamentalist Chrisitians who put limits on sexual expression. Orthodox Judaism embraces sexual pleasure -- but only in marriage. Even certain native American tribes held this view -- well before European influence.

My point, like the point of the article, is more about ignorance than it is about repression, and as far as sexual ignorance is concerned, in this country, there is a direct and powerful correlation between the influence of religion on public policy and the lamentable quality of sex education. Of course there are many causes for repression, as there are for ignorance, but ignoring religion in the discussion is like discussing obesity without addressing diet and exercise.

@Dave -- I don't think religion should be ignored. I just don't think it should be viewed as the sole component. While this article focuses on sexual ignorance (which itself is kind of open ended -- there's a big difference between not knowing where babies come from versus not knowing the use of certain sex toys) there is a large degree of ignorance, period -- and that includes areas that don't deal with morals or value judgements.

"Please don't base your opinion of Christians on a small but vocal minority who may seem angry/reactionary/ignorant to you."

I don't. I base my opinion of most Christians on a wide variety of things I've read about religious teachings and doctrine, and as an observer of human behavior. I have no use for them or any other organized religion, which causes nothing but strife and hypocritical behavior.

I don't think religion should be ignored. I just don't think it should be viewed as the sole component.

As long as you acknowledge religion as the main, dominant component in the perpetuation of sexual ignorance among Americans (akin to diet and exercise in my obesity metaphor), then I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Inaction is the leading cause of all ignorance in the world, nothing not even religion can stand in the way of knowledge if people want it badly enough, but that's the whole problem, most people are content to be ignorant. Ignorance is bliss they say.

China, at the height of its population reduction program, did not repress sex; it repressed birth, forcing abortions on couples with more than two children. I understand that the pressure has eased somewhat as the demographers pointed out that a rapid dip in population would leave too few workers supporting the older people. A similar thing happened in Japan, where the method was much less draconian, but the birthrate dropped from 34/1000 to 17/1000 in about a decade and the demographers pointed out the same thing. The drop in Japan was associated with successful family planning and pregnancy prevention.

@Dave -- I do not consider it to be the main ingredient. I do believe it is fair to consider it though. But any discussion would have to include what is ignorance and at what levels is it harmful. I believe if people wanted to know something, then they would know. Religion teaches love, respect, marriage, monogamy, child rearing, and sex for pleasure within the bonds of matrimony under God. It does not generally discuss sex toys, positions, cross species mating as a norm in the animal kingdom, etc.

@Cinclodesfuscus -- What you say about the Chinese and Japanese position on birthrate is true -- and separate from the issue of sexual repression in both nations, which is also quite true.

Dave, it sounds like you've formed your opinion of religious influence on Sex Ed from the news. Let's look at some other opinions we could form from the news:
The #1 most common past-time in America is murder.
Every police officer is corrupt and abusive.
Every member of any minority has suffered wide-spread abuse from all forms of authority.
Barrack Obama was believed to be the second coming of Christ by many of his supporters.
George W. Bush ran for a third term in office.
The US invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of slaughtering the population and stealing barrels of oil.

In the future, I suggest educating yourself from wider sources. Yes, some religious fundamentalists have caused huge problems in Sex Ed courses. Others have driven the system to create effective and practical courses that educated their children without advocating anything. Still others have taken the opportunity to have their own talk with their kids about the morals of sex, recognizing that the system has talked about the facts of sex.

Dave, it sounds like you've formed your opinion of religious influence on Sex Ed from the news.

C., it sounds like you've formed your opinion of my information sources from your own assumptions and prejudices. You don't know me, let alone where I get my information. Are you seriously contending that religious fundamentalists have done as much good for the delivery of comprehensive, fact-based sex education as they have done harm? I know it's a cheap tactic to request documentation of every fact referred to here, but I would really love to know where you claim to have found that information.

they should be publishing and teaching people how to be HUMAN instead of an animal.

If sex is natural and normal for "all life forms on this planet" (apparently including those that reproduce asexually), how is education about human sexuality related in any way to animals (or "an animal")?

That is because people like Roberta think sex is nasty and evil. To gain any pleasure from it means you must be rutting like an animal. In other words sex must be mechanical and boring.

If sex were mechanical and not fun like Roberta and many religious would like then the human race would die off as there would be no reason to have sex at all.

Without the pleasure component sex is pure sweaty work and most people wouldn't even do it.

That is because people like Roberta think sex is nasty and evil. To gain any pleasure from it means you must be rutting like an animal. In other words sex must be mechanical and boring.

True. Of course, the irony is that humans are unique in the pleasure we derive from sex. Female orgasms are extremely rare in nature (can't recall if it's only in humans, or if some other primates have the phenomenon). So taking pleasure in sex is one of those things that separates us from, not that gives us something in common with, the (other) animals.

Without the pleasure component sex is pure sweaty work and most people wouldn't even do it.

Also true. Of course, if we had evolved like the other animals, sex would probably be a lot less sweaty work; it would be brief and perfunctory like it is in virtually all other species. Again, the pleasure differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, and it's the "sex for procreation only" crowd that is behaving like "animals."

Read Kurt Vonnegut's "Welcome to the Monkey House." See: Ethical birth control.

@Dave and @Sandy

It is puzzling how you can say Roberta believes sex is "nasty and evil" when she makes no such statement. Logically, to make that pronouncement it must be concluded that you know her personally and have discussed the issue. Is this the case?

It is puzzling how you can say Roberta believes sex is "nasty and evil" when she makes no such statement.

She's the one who equated sexual pleasure with "animals" (well, "an animal" - she did not specify which one). Did you get the impression she meant that to be a compliment? It was pretty clear to me that her statement was an indictment of pleasurable sex as a matter of our "baser nature." As I've shown above, she was also dead wrong, which is further evidence of a viewpoint grounded in a reality other than the world we actually live in.

Dave, I think you missed her point. She wasn't saying you had to be 'an animal' to have sex, or to have fun with it. She's saying it's a pretty basic function that shouldn't need to be taught, like having a bowel movement (note: she said nothing about controlling bowel movements).

Animal, in this context, doesn't mean bad, or evil, or even uncontrolled. It means basic. We are all animals (i.e. not plants, fungi, or single-celled organisms). But we can be more than that. We can also be Human. That is what we should be teaching.

I don't agree with her 100%, but at least I understood her point.

And, given her actual points, I wouldn't at all assume she's a Christian.

She wasn't saying you had to be 'an animal' to have sex, or to have fun with it. She's saying it's a pretty basic function that shouldn't need to be taught

Huh. Didn't get that at all, either at first, or upon re-reading. Either way, if she seriously believes sex just comes naturally and nothing need be learned or improved (like a "bowel movement" - freaky!), I sincerely hope she is alone and celibate (or maybe shacked with that literary giant, hockeypuck). It's clear that, if she meant what you say she meant, she hasn't the first clue what sex among humans really is.

Dave - Im with you on this one...

I don't think that the basics of sex really need to be taught (this goes here and do this til this happens) but what needs to be taught is how to have safe sex (condoms) and how to protect yourself from getting pregnant (birth control). The functions of your reproductive system (a form of sex ed) should also be taught so that you know why and how you can get pregnant. I also firmly believe that condoms should be given out at schools (they are going to do they should at least be encouraged to be safe) and also taught about abstinence.

Teach the kids that is better to wait until your older and why, but also accept that some are still going to do things. And you want the ones that still decide to do stuff to be safe. Less teen pregnancies, and less STD's. And some will still remain abstinent.

Also some animals (and even humans occasionally) do help their babies have a bowel movement. Cats and dogs for example will lick their babies stomachs to stimulate the bowels to move. Humans rub their babies tummy. If you have a newborn and call the dr and say you think the baby may be constipated, the first thing they tell you to try is to rub the babies belly.