In that case you're going to have to do away with MTV, half of Hollywood, most prime time television, etc. Though I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea.

Teens like to act out, and they get their giggles out of doing things their parents don't like. If sex is made a big issue then it will only encourage using sex as a means of "rebellion."

The argument here is whether or not abstinence-only education is the only sex ed that the US government should be promoting. Sarn, I would be happy with what you propose about saying "if you do this, then here is how to stay safe". That isn't the direction the current administration and Congress are moving in, though.

Oh, and to all of the people who say, "people will figure it out on their own:" People don't figure it out on their own, and in the process of not figuring it out they make more people who aren't going to figure it out down the road. Thats why we have education, to learn from those who have come before us without having to make all of the same mistakes.

If you think things should go back to the way they were x centuries ago, then you're gonna have to get rid of things like the birth control pill. It was a huge part of the women's lib movement, because women finally had control over reproduction. The pill allows people to have sex without having to worry about getting pregnant. Any move to past ways would have to eliminate the pill, thereby reintroducing the threat of pregnancy.

While spreading diseases.

It's when you like a girl so you take your clothes off and look at each other.

Just girls?

That'd be sodomy.

Then the female dislodges her jaw and eats you, whole.

It's pretty awesome, I've literally had hundreds of girlfriends.

[quote=Sarn Cadrill]Bottom line is abstinance is the **ONLY** garunteed method of prevent STI's or unwanted pregnancy.[/quote]

Thanks for playing.

C'mon, you know he's was referring to the spread of STIs in the context of sex. You're just nitpicking about his phrasing.

they've been nitpicking my phrasing this whole thread, while avoiding my actual arguments. Thus, I'm done.

Thanks for playing.

Welcome to Massassi!

A big part of arguing your own point of view is in the phrasing. If you can't properly convey your argument then maybe you shouldn't be arguing.

Liberal media = more sex
more sex = more pregnancy problems

THUS

liberal media = more pregnancy problems

THAT'S EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE MAKING, SARN.


How can there SUDDENLY be a problem if things have been improving for fifty years?




Uh.


There a term for what you are describing, its called 'sex education.'



Okay.

But the point was, his meaning was obvious; they were simply pointing out a technicality in place of making an actual argument. No reasonable person would ever look at what he said in context and come to the conclusion that he thought that sex is the only way to spread STIs.

I dunno, his argument sounds pretty downs.


But maybe you have to be a tard to understand one.

I thought this was relevent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120501208.html?hpid=sec-health

holy **** those are insanely high rates...

In my country it's around 4. That's among the lowest in the world. And our sex ed is damn 'liberal'.

Huh? The current rate according to that is %4.1.

I don't know where you're seeing that.

I'm talking about that second graph. I'm seeing 73 births per 1000 women aged 18-19, 41.9 births for age 15-19 and 22 for age 15-17.

Ah, you're talking percentages.

Sorry. Anyway, I wasn't.

41.9 births per thousand woman is 4.19%.

You meant 4 as in... 4 births per 1000 teens?

Re-reading the opening post got me thinking that methods of birth control shouldn't even be part of the education. The sex organs, physical relationships, disease, pregnancy, and fetal development should but why go beyond that? It makes sense to explain what the parts are, how they work, and what can result.

...but it doesn't make sense to teach kids safe sex?

Thats like explaining all about personal hygene. But not telling someone what soap is.

Or saying: If you crash on a bicycle you might get hurt!
And then not informing them that a helmet will help prevent that.

And if I ever found out someone withheld useful safety information like that from me I would promptly call them a douchefag.

Good idea. Teach them how sex works then leave them to their own devices. Brilliant.

Left to their own devices, they will already figure out how it works. No need to teach anything by that logic.



There is no such thing as safe sex except in the minority of circumstances where there is abstinence or monogamy.



How ignorant. I said the consequences of having sex should be taught. Pregnancy and disease. You must have misread my post.

Ha! I didn't know there really was abstinence only sex ed stuff, I thought that was just something Family Guy made up for hilarities sake.
Never encountered such a thing in Australia, though I suppose we might have them somewhere.

Woah... you don't want them taught about birth control?
That's idiotic, they are going to try sex, it's going to happen... the most important thing sex ed can do is teach about safety.

And you are one of the worst offenders of that particular annoyance.

As for Sarn claiming that sex is suddenly a problem, that's just plain ridiculous. I'm fairly sure I've seen multiple studies saying that the rate of sex hasn't changed much since the 50's.

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

Just because you only poke one person doesn't mean it's safe. I see someone was denied sex ed himself.

I hate religious debates.

I misread nothing. I am making an analogy here. Try to comprehend.

You want to tell them about the negative effects of sex. But not tell them how to prevent them. That is all kinds of stupid.

This issue should be a logic debate, not a religious one. Any religious morals in sex education should be confined to Sunday School.

How is using a condom and/or birth control not safe? Because they fail to do their job 0.1% of the time? So do airbags and anti-lock brakes. Are those unsafe, too?

I'm just amuzed that he thinks monogomy is some kind of protection against anything. Yeah it lessens your risk somewhat, but your wife could still have something.

Your wife could also be ****ing twelve guys behind your back. It doesn't really prevent anything.

Yeah, sure. Bickering with rob doesn't count.

Then it isn't monogamy :specops:

When I was in sexed they told us a story about a christian couple who had been supposedly monogamous. Then they both got AIDs. Turns out that the guy had been gay and having unprotected sex with guys for most of the marriage, even though they had several children and had been up there in the church. >_>

Also http://www.thebody.com/content/art2418.html

"Teenage birth rate per 1,000 births
* Sweden -- 7
* France -- 9
* Canada -- 20
* Great Britain -- 31
* United States -- 49"

Googling around shows that in some sub-Saharan African countries the rate is around 140 per 1000 and in South Korea its 2.9 per 1000.

In Sweden sex ed has been a part of the mandatory coursework for schools since 1955.