This seemed relevant:



(Warning: a rather explicit picture depicting male homosexual sex)

When I was just finishing 7th grade, my family moved just across the school district line.

In my old school district, they waited until 8th grade to administer sex ed.

In my new school district, they administered sex ed in 7th grade, so I missed it.

Then, because my new school district sucked, I went to all male Catholic school.

I've been trying to de-crazy/adjust myself ever since. D:

Well, I was speaking in general terms. Of course my personal experience on the subject may differ from the majority here.

You should ask Dj-Yoshi, Stat, and Zully about this stuff.

Servicemen and asians.

I learned abut sex from listening to Prince.

i want to have sex with lots of underage schoolgirls so i assume this means im against it?

...is one man's opinion.

Seriously, if you guys are done ego-stroking about how enlightened and intelligent you all are, perhaps you'll allow me to provide a different side of things.

Bottom line is abstinance is the **ONLY** garunteed method of prevent STI's or unwanted pregnancy. Other methods will greatly reduce the risk, but will not garuntee.

Now before you all go post statistics about how areas that teach abstinance have higher pregnancy rates/more STI's, let me just preempt it by saying those statistics are irrevant. If someone gets pregnant or gets an STI, then they're not being abstinant, now are they?

Look back 200 years ago. How many teen pregnancies were there? How many people had STI's? These things were practically unheard of (at least in the US). What form of sexual education was there? There either wasn't any, or there was abstinance only programs. Now as sexuality becomes less taboo and more generally accepted (in part due to these "Sex Ed" classes, but moreso due to liberal controlled media), these things are suddenly a problem.

I would challenge you all to look at this a little differently. Instead of saying "Here's a problem. How can we counteract its effects?" why not say "Here's a problem. How can we get to the root of it and destroy it, so it's no longer a problem at all?"

Are you serious, Sarn? You really think teen pregnancy rates were lower two hundred years ago? When girls were being married at sixteen and starting families at seventeen? The Puritans--as er, Puritanical as they were about sex--required a marriage to be consummated in order for it to be legit, so you can bet girls at young as sixteen, maybe even fifteen were getting pregnant at a much higher rate than today.

Let's just look at teen pregnancy rates since the 1950s (the ones that you claim are caused by the "liberal controlled media"). Any study you'll look at will show you that the rates have been DROPPING since then. So according to your logic... the "liberal controlled media" has resulted in less teen pregnancy? (that's not the cause obviously, I'm just following your argument)

And as for STDs, Roman physicians described herpes in the 2nd century, and rudimentary condoms were being used in the sixteenth century to prevent the spread of disease. STDs have been around forever, only now we have a better understanding.

Teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs are serious problems, and they need to be addressed with a practical solution--sex education. You can say the statistics are irrelevant, but I'll choose a practical solution over the solution you propose which seems to say: "Oops! You got an STD? YOU DESERVED IT, SINNER."

No f***ing sh**, Sherlock. The best way to avoid a hangover is to not drink. The best way to avoid an accident is no not drive. The best way to avoid getting a heartbreak is to never date.

These are obvious, they require no education. You don't teach how to not do something, because people are pretty well versed in not doing it. BECAUSE IT'S THE LACK OF AN ACTION.

The job, as educators, is to keep people safe and give them knowledge. By not giving students all the facts, in any area, let's not even talk about Sex Ed, you're doing them a disservice. If you don't teach kids about World War 2 because you feel it's too gruesome, it doesn't change the fact that it happened, and does a disservice to them when they get into the real world.

The lack of relevant sex education in the United States is one of our most horrific failures in our public education system. It will be the undoing of our nation.

Fair enough, perhaps I should have specified "unwanted" or "unexpected" teen pregnancies.

Right, cause "media" wasn't around in the 1950's. Perhaps there has been a decline in teen pregnancy rates since the 50's (source please), but that's not what I claimed. I didn't say "50 years ago." I said "200 years ago." And no, you got my argument backwards (i'll assume for your sake though, that that was just a mistype, or maybe I'm not reading what you're trying to say clearly.

I never claimed STI's (the new PC term for STD's, since they're not technically diseases, they're infections) weren't around in ancient times. Further, I wasn't even *dealing* with any culture other than US culture, so I fail to see how that's relevant. As we all know, Romans put a huge emphasis on sexuality (and even homosexuality) in their culture, so we should expect to find such diseases.

If you think that's what I'm saying, then you didn't read my post very well, or you read it with a preconception in mind of what you "thought" I was trying to say. First of all, where did I imply *ANY* religious ramifcations to sex/STI's/pregnancies or anything at all? I didn't. Second, I *NEVER* suggested that "sex ed" was even a problem. Only that it wasn't a solution.

Your entire post seems to be arguing against points I never made. I'd suggest you read through what I say more thoroughly and without bias next time, before you try to "debunk" my arguments.

(See my response to Wuss. Same thing applies. I never said sex ed was bad.)

However, since you all seem to have a misconception of exactly what I believe, I'll clarify.

I believe that sex education should be taught in a manner that stresses the benefits of abstaining from sex, as well as the significance of sexual activity, while providing students with the knowledge needed to protect themselves should the choose to have sex.

Bottom line, rather than "Sex is bad. Don't do it. That's all." or "Sex is awesome and fun! We should all have sex! And by the way you should follow these steps.", we should have "Sex is dangerous. The best way to avoid reprecussions is to avoid having sex altogher. However, if you choose to have sex, here are the steps you can take to minimize the consequences."

Marriage cannot automatically equal "wanted" and "expected." I'm sure plenty of destitute families accidentally became pregnant and endured unwanted hardships because of it. Unfortunately, I don't think any reliable research exists about family planning two hundred years ago.

You argued that the liberal media causes high pregnancy rates, which I debunked by showing how the rates have been dropping since 1950 (National Center for Health Statistics, "Births to Teenagers in the United States, 1940-2000," National Vital Statistics Report, 2001, Vol. 49, No. 10. link is a PDF, sorry)

You argued STIs were "practically unheard of" in the US... then why were being condoms made used as long as 400 years ago?


Okay. Now I'm lost. First you say, sex education is not the solution. Then you say we should have sex education in schools. What exactly are you trying to argue? That sex education shouldn't wantonly promote promiscuity? Um... I agree. In fact, probably everyone agrees (except for the part about the made-up link about the liberal media and pregnancy rates).

So what? As long as they're in a stable family situation it's not like it causes any problems. Theo only reason people got married that early back than, is that they didn't need so much education to be functional members of society. The whole reason teen pregnancies are a problem today is that the teens in question are alone and unable to support their child.

I always love how people idealize the 50s. I don't know how anyone thinks there was no teen pregnancy with characters like the Fonz and Dally Winston running around.

You guys are ****ing rockstars.

People got married earlier a long time ago because life expectancy was a whole lot shorted than it is today. Also, it is now accepted that a woman's role in society is more than just bearing children and keeping the house.

None of this would be a problem if people would be having buttsecks like nature intended.

Cant check a PDF right now, cause I'm at work, but, your argument is flawed, because once again, you're creating an argument that I never made. Perhaps my wording was unclear in this regard, but I never said that liberal media causes high pregnancy rates, but that liberal media causes an increase in sexual activity. ... No, as I look back over my post, I wasn't unclear.

I said, "Now as sexuality becomes less taboo and more generally accepted (in part due to these "Sex Ed" classes, but moreso due to liberal controlled media), these things are suddenly a problem."

So, media says "Sex is good." People have more sex. More sex causes more pregnancies/STI's.

I don't know.. Maybe because people didn't want to get pregnant? That's a stupid argument. My point is, maybe condoms existed back then, but our schools weren't teaching children how to use them.



I never said that.

Not exactly.


Why is it my job to hold your hand. Read my posts without your preconcieved biases about what you *think* i'm saying, and maybe you'll get it.

I doubt that was the only reason. But I do agree that people in a stable family relationship are better equipped to raise up a child.

Yeah, now a woman's role is to have sex as much as possible and take care of any resulting kids by herself while the guy runs off with another woman when she isn't pretty anymore.

Only if she is dumb enough to have sex with useless twits like yourself with no sense of personal responsibility or connection to reality.

Or do I mean me.

Human biology hasn't changed. Like it or not, people like to have sex. In order to deal with that in the past, people were married at an early age to make it conform with accepted religious teachings of the time. But either way you look at it, very little about humans getting it on in the teenage years has changed for thousands of years. Societial constructs are what have changed.

This entire argument is stupid. People are having sex. Right now. Teenagers even. They need to know what happens when you stick it in there for awhile and work it back and forth. Otherwise we have even more stupid people in the world. Get your religion out of this, it has no place in the real world.

No, changes in social norms cause an increase in awareness of sexuality, human nature does the rest. The media has only brought it to our attention.

YOU DESIRE FOR SEX WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS

Oh! My! Look out, you could get AID!

True, but in the past, US culture combatted the desire to have sex at an early age, because if you did and it was discovered, you were shunned. Now it's acceptable, and even normal, and so we're simply seeing the problems that come along with people that are too immature to be having sex, having sex.

Religion? Where? I never said anything about "my religion." Get your personal, preconcieved bias out of this, it has no place in this argument.

Only religion can produce this kind of fear of education.

Yes, and, as a direct result of that combating, we got got the free love era in the 1960s. Combating biology and evolution worked in the short term, but you can fight it in the long run.

wow. and you probably think "religious" people are ignorant. i'm no longer going to respond to any of your arguments, because there's no point in arguing with bricks. thank you.

No, she was shunned, he was still praised by friends, and went about his life mostly unscathed. I think you need to have a long hard look at the Women's Rights Movement in the later half of the 1900's to understand why it was so "easy" for people to keep young sex "in check" a few hundred years ago.

You may also want to lay off the whole "people didn't have sex in the old days" argument. People have always had sex. They tend to be fairly good at doing so. That's the only reason any of us are here, and in some cultures, the sex was far more wild and extreme than what we as Americans would even consider normal.

Why does it take a freaking class to get people to realize that they need to use a condom if them sleep with a bunch of people who have in turn, also slept with a bunch of people? If they can't figure that out on their own, how much hope do they have of learning it in a class?

It's true, and what about those morons that need classes to tell them how numbers work. I mean, they're numbers!

Oh, that's right, because here in the real world, people generally don't understand the nature of disease and biological functions, and do need to be told what happens on a microscopic level, since, you know, they can't exactly observe it for themselves.

Would you figure it out on your own if there was no one there to tell you otherwise? People need to get as much information about sex and various forms of contraceptives and diseases and how they spread so they can make an informed decision about whether they want to have sex or not.

I'm sure that was the case occaisionally, but not nearly as often as you seem to want to suggest. More likely, the sexual issues of that time would have been spousal rape/abuse under the umbrella of "we're married and I'm the man of the house, so I get to say when".

I never argued that people didn't have sex. Just that underaged (for clarification, unmarried) teenagers did not have sex (for clarification, consentual) as often, for fear of being ostricized.

You mean for the U.S. right? Because that's not true for most places outside the Western World, and even places in the West. And do you mean two teenagers having sex with each other? Because that was rare up until recently anyway, it was usually older men having sex with teenaged women.

I'm really confused now. What's this sex thing?

...are you seriously advocating that people be punished for sexual desires?

Also, the "you can't get STIs if you don't have sex" theory falls apart in the face of dirty transfusions, dirty needles, or general contact with the fluids of another person, either directly or indirectly.

Yes, specifically in the US.

Yes! HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE! hurr. But seriously, no. I'm suggesting that we stop promoting sexual activity, except in case of mature, safe adults.

True, but I'm not saying otherwise. And in this day and age, with the advancements in medical science, if you're getting an STI from a source other than having sex, you're *probably* doing something illegal (ie injecting illicit drugs).

So, you're willing to say this, but you're unwilling to let someone bring up religion in this discussion? Religious views in the U.S. specifically have slanted and tainted our view on sex as it is. Ask a Eurossassian how bizarre the Janet Jackson nip-slip fiasco was to them.

Not at all. I'm unwilling to let someone accuse *me* of using religion as an argument, because I haven't. Do you seriously not see the difference between me saying religion has no part in this discussion and me getting mad for someone telling me I'm afraid of education because I'm religious (especially when I've remained carefully neutral about religion in this discussion)?

If you'd like to discuss the role of religion in US culture regarding sex, I'd be happy to, though that may be an entirely different topic in and of itself.

This is 100% irrelevant. Why would you even bring it up. Abstinence, and sex ed, will have no effect on that stuff.