65 pregnant teens = one canceled abstinence-only program

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: glen
What is wrogn with books from 1988?
Has reading, math, or sex changed since then?

A little bit, yes, and yes

It's also nice to have newer literature

Sex has changed since 1988? Explain, please.

The only thing I see is that casual oral sex is now in voque. Damn why wasn't it that way when I was in school.

Many things have changed in our knowledge, treatment, and etiology of STDs.

Examples please. I entered medical school in 88 and the prevention and etiologies are still the same, the only change may be treatment regimes esp for HIV. Herpes has a few more drugs, no biggy. New vaccine may prevent HPV but treatment has changed little.

I'm mostly referring to HIV/AIDS. And look at what you posted thats more than enough info to edit a book. Heck just how things have changed with HIV/AIDS since '88 is ridiculous amount.

Do you think the current HIV regimes would be included in a high school sex-ed text. Currently no text can be printed fast enough to be up to date on HIV treatment regimes, it requires constant monitoring of the literature and is left pretty much up to those physician who treat HIV, mostly Infectios Disease. And with regards to the other diseases, again only a simple explanation would be included in a high-school text.

Don't get me wrong I don't think that high school student should be learning sex-ed from a 1988 text. Its mostly what wasn't even included in the 88 text that they should be aware of, Hep B & C, the cross-over of Herpes 1 and 2 now both oral and genital, HPV and cervical cancer, etc, etc.

My original point is that not only vaginal intercoarse need to be addressed but also any sexual contact as pregnancy is not the only health crisis in teens and now preteens.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Absitance has a 100% success rate in avoiding pregnancy and STDs, but it needs to be presented and supported strongly.

Teens too stupid to know that having sex unprotected can lead to preganncy would probably be too stupid to open a concom wrapper anyway.

however, abstinence has a far lower adherence rate among highschoolers, regardless of support and presentation.

And that is the problem. It is a waste of time. Teenagers want to have sexual relations, and telling them to abstain from sex won't change their mind when Johnny has his hand up Mary's skirt and 10 minutes later she is riding him like a horse.

They should just have condoms available for free...or something. You can't stop the hormones.

that's saying that losing self control is an excuse for the commission of any act. therefore, if you piss me off, i am perfectly justified in losing control of myself, putting a gun to your head and spilling your brains on the ground.

just because a lot of people do something doesn't make it right. in this case, kids fvcking like rabbits. parents need to teach their kids, period. you can teach self control - otherwise there'd be plenty more shootings and plenty more pregnant teens.

to absolve people from being responsible for controlling themselves is to throw the very foundations of society away. by allowing people to succumb to the very basest instincts, we will become nothing more than animals. i'm not saying that people shouldn't have sex. i'm saying people need to be able to control themselves - something that seems far less prevalent now.

How in the holy fvck did you get that out of my reply?

I am simply saying that telling all the boys and girls to only abstain from sex because they could get pregnant or get an STD, is crap. It is a waste of time, because kids are going to fvck if they really want to, regardless of what a teacher tells them.

So instead of spending so much time on abstinence, they need to spend more time on telling the kids what to do if they are going to have sex, since they will. Condoms should be provided for free, there should be more education about other forms of BC.

Its kind of like the dumbass D.A.R.E program that they made all of us go through. It doesn't stick with any of the kids...if they want to try drugs when they get into HS or College they aren't gonnna think "Gee, I remember that drug program they had all of us take. I learned in that program that drugs are bad. I think I will abstain from trying these drugs now. Thanks D.A.R.E."

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Honestly, how many people actually use condoms or dental dams during oral sex? I've never even seen a dental dam.

Honestly neither have I, at least not in real life. Just make sure you examine that thing well before you put your tongue in there.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: eits
this is old news.... it happens in every conservative state... the carolinas are the worst.

they strongly tout their abstinence programs and end up with somewhere up to 25% pregnant teens, whereas places north that have sex ed and teach contraceptive methods have around 2% teen pregnancies.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/america/st...isplay.asp?ID=3&sID=18&sort=rank#table

Apparently, SC has a lower rate than: New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Delaware, Hawaii, California, and Arizona.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Absitance has a 100% success rate in avoiding pregnancy and STDs, but it needs to be presented and supported strongly.

Teens too stupid to know that having sex unprotected can lead to preganncy would probably be too stupid to open a concom wrapper anyway.

however, abstinence has a far lower adherence rate among highschoolers, regardless of support and presentation.

And that is the problem. It is a waste of time. Teenagers want to have sexual relations, and telling them to abstain from sex won't change their mind when Johnny has his hand up Mary's skirt and 10 minutes later she is riding him like a horse.

They should just have condoms available for free...or something. You can't stop the hormones.

that's saying that losing self control is an excuse for the commission of any act. therefore, if you piss me off, i am perfectly justified in losing control of myself, putting a gun to your head and spilling your brains on the ground.

just because a lot of people do something doesn't make it right. in this case, kids fvcking like rabbits. parents need to teach their kids, period. you can teach self control - otherwise there'd be plenty more shootings and plenty more pregnant teens.

to absolve people from being responsible for controlling themselves is to throw the very foundations of society away. by allowing people to succumb to the very basest instincts, we will become nothing more than animals. i'm not saying that people shouldn't have sex. i'm saying people need to be able to control themselves - something that seems far less prevalent now.

How in the holy fvck did you get that out of my reply?

I am simply saying that telling all the boys and girls to only abstain from sex because they could get pregnant or get an STD, is crap. It is a waste of time, because kids are going to fvck if they really want to, regardless of what a teacher tells them.

So instead of spending so much time on abstinence, they need to spend more time on telling the kids what to do if they are going to have sex, since they will. Condoms should be provided for free, there should be more education about other forms of BC.

Its kind of like the dumbass D.A.R.E program that they made all of us go through. It doesn't stick with any of the kids...if they want to try drugs when they get into HS or College they aren't gonnna think "Gee, I remember that drug program they had all of us take. I learned in that program that drugs are bad. I think I will abstain from trying these drugs now. Thanks D.A.R.E."

"They should just have condoms available for free...or something. You can't stop the hormones."

self-control >> hormones. that's like pleading you went into a rage and killed someone, so you shouldn't be held accountable due to mental disease/defect. it's a cheapass way to delegate responsibility for one's actions elsewhere, and is by far from true. regardless of how horny you may be, you still have the choice to have sex or not.

edit: it all starts in the home.. that's why our education system sucks so hard. as much a difference as funding will make, nothing can replace parents. parents need to teach their kids, it's that simple.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Absitance has a 100% success rate in avoiding pregnancy and STDs, but it needs to be presented and supported strongly.

Teens too stupid to know that having sex unprotected can lead to preganncy would probably be too stupid to open a concom wrapper anyway.

however, abstinence has a far lower adherence rate among highschoolers, regardless of support and presentation.

And that is the problem. It is a waste of time. Teenagers want to have sexual relations, and telling them to abstain from sex won't change their mind when Johnny has his hand up Mary's skirt and 10 minutes later she is riding him like a horse.

They should just have condoms available for free...or something. You can't stop the hormones.

that's saying that losing self control is an excuse for the commission of any act. therefore, if you piss me off, i am perfectly justified in losing control of myself, putting a gun to your head and spilling your brains on the ground.

just because a lot of people do something doesn't make it right. in this case, kids fvcking like rabbits. parents need to teach their kids, period. you can teach self control - otherwise there'd be plenty more shootings and plenty more pregnant teens.

to absolve people from being responsible for controlling themselves is to throw the very foundations of society away. by allowing people to succumb to the very basest instincts, we will become nothing more than animals. i'm not saying that people shouldn't have sex. i'm saying people need to be able to control themselves - something that seems far less prevalent now.

How in the holy fvck did you get that out of my reply?

I am simply saying that telling all the boys and girls to only abstain from sex because they could get pregnant or get an STD, is crap. It is a waste of time, because kids are going to fvck if they really want to, regardless of what a teacher tells them.

So instead of spending so much time on abstinence, they need to spend more time on telling the kids what to do if they are going to have sex, since they will. Condoms should be provided for free, there should be more education about other forms of BC.

Its kind of like the dumbass D.A.R.E program that they made all of us go through. It doesn't stick with any of the kids...if they want to try drugs when they get into HS or College they aren't gonnna think "Gee, I remember that drug program they had all of us take. I learned in that program that drugs are bad. I think I will abstain from trying these drugs now. Thanks D.A.R.E."

"They should just have condoms available for free...or something. You can't stop the hormones."

self-control >> hormones. that's like pleading you went into a rage and killed someone, so you shouldn't be held accountable due to mental disease/defect. it's a cheapass way to delegate responsibility for one's actions elsewhere, and is by far from true. regardless of how horny you may be, you still have the choice to have sex or not.

edit: it all starts in the home.. that's why our education system sucks so hard. as much a difference as funding will make, nothing can replace parents. parents need to teach their kids, it's that simple.

Dude...relax. Going into a rage/killing someone and blaming it on hormones is not the same thing has screwing your girlfriend in HS...so that was a horrible analogy.

You know how dumb a lot of people are, especially teenagers. What makes you think they will all suddenly realize that they should either start using BC responsibly, or stop having sex altogether? The smart ones will continue to make good decisions, regardless of the program in place at school, whereas the idiots will keep fvcking up. I know it is hard for you to understand, but thats just the way it is.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Link to source?

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Honestly, how many people actually use condoms or dental dams during oral sex? I've never even seen a dental dam.

Honestly neither have I, at least not in real life. Just make sure you examine that thing well before you put your tongue in there.

Yup... just poke around in there with a popsicle stick and a flashlight.

 

[sourceninja]

abstinance, because telling a teenage not to do something they think is fun has ALWAYS worked.

 

[moshquerade]

you need to post the link to your article OP.

"abstinence only" is a totally unrealistic approach to educating teens about sex. nuff said.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Repost, almost a year old.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Repost Part Deux.

 

[letdown427]

Wait, so a dental dam.

If she is giving you oral, you should use a condom and if you're providing the service to her, that is when a dental dam is used?

*Google images etc on "Dental Dam"

ZOMFG. Bwahahahahahaha. That made my day. Had never heard of one before, thank you.


I second the earlier post. Intelligent people will continue to make the right decisions, and get annoyed at all the BS classes, and idiotic people will continue to dribble on themselves during the classes, and screw anything and everything they can either fit it in, or fit in it.

Originally posted by: moshquerade
"abstinence only" is a totally unrealistic approach to educating teens about sex. nuff said.

It's not an approach to educating them at all in fact (Hmm, that may have been your point. Either way, you can now claim that was your point I guess. D'ah well)

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: glen
What is wrogn with books from 1988?
Has reading, math, or sex changed since then?

Sex was banned in 1988 by Nancy Reagan.


Now, what we need is sex ed from 1975, the disco/studio 54 generation..

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Examples please. I entered medical school in 88 and the prevention and etiologies are still the same, the only change may be treatment regimes esp for HIV. Herpes has a few more drugs, no biggy. New vaccine may prevent HPV but treatment has changed little.

What they were teaching you in medical school in 88 and what was published in the written materials for high school students in 88 are 2 vastly different things. I would hope, and expect, that your medical school teaching was much more cutting edge and not lagging behind.

 

[eLiu]

The mothers/fathers need a good, long beating.

What a bunch of retards; you're not fit to raise a child before you gain some g*damn maturity.

And no, I don't think I've reached the pinnacle of maturity; I'm definitely far from ready to handle a child.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mugs
Not saying we shouldn't teach it, but come on - who doesn't know about condoms?

People who are taught abstinence only?

edit: bah, someone else alredy made that comment... I'm slow.

Seriously? Because I didn't need to be taught what a condom is... I knew about them before I had sex ed.

How did you learn this? Parent? Friend? Movie?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: mugs
Not saying we shouldn't teach it, but come on - who doesn't know about condoms?

People who are taught abstinence only?

edit: bah, someone else alredy made that comment... I'm slow.

Seriously? Because I didn't need to be taught what a condom is... I knew about them before I had sex ed.

How did you learn this? Parent? Friend? Movie?

Friends, TV, I don't know... the kids have the Internet these days you know. By the time they have sex ed they've probably watched enough porn to know what a condom is.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: mugs
Friends, TV, I don't know... the kids have the Internet these days you know. By the time they have sex ed they've probably watched enough porn to know what a condom is.

It varies by state though. From your profile, you're from New Jersey. It's not exactly a state that is known for its conservative views.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: mugs
Friends, TV, I don't know... the kids have the Internet these days you know. By the time they have sex ed they've probably watched enough porn to know what a condom is.

It varies by state though. From your profile, you're from New Jersey. It's not exactly a state that is known for its conservative views.

That is true

I guess my thinking is that it's not really the school's responsibility to be teaching kids about sex, but on the other hand it probably saves them money on their welfare programs.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: mugs
Friends, TV, I don't know... the kids have the Internet these days you know. By the time they have sex ed they've probably watched enough porn to know what a condom is.

TV/movies would likely have been restricted by the parents. Anything with "sexual content" wouldn't be allowed (assumtion, but follow the line of thinking that goes into teaching abstinence only). You may have heard about a condom from your friends, but I doubt they told you how to use it. Or when. Or why.

You learned it because your parents didn't filter that kind of content.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: mugs
Friends, TV, I don't know... the kids have the Internet these days you know. By the time they have sex ed they've probably watched enough porn to know what a condom is.

It varies by state though. From your profile, you're from New Jersey. It's not exactly a state that is known for its conservative views.

That is true

I guess my thinking is that it's not really the school's responsibility to be teaching kids about sex, but on the other hand it probably saves them money on their welfare programs.

Looking at the figures from someone's earlier link about the school, the likelihood is that that is true (that they'd be on or are on welfare).

I mean, take a look at these figures:

1,209 people 11,064,657 people
% (age 25+) w/College Degree 8%
Population Average Age 48 years old
Average Household size 1.4 persons
Median Household Income $9,455
Avg. # of Rooms in Household 3.1 rooms
Median Age of Housing Structure 64 years old
Median Value of Housing Unit $30,300
% Owning / % Renting 4% / 96%