• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Safe Sex vs Save Sex

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
i actually heard teenage pregnancy is higher in some places that are extremly religous because they avoid sex ed. The kids sleep around anyways and end up pregnant
 


<< Texmaster,in your case life long abstinence is in order. >>

\


This coming from the guy who made fun of people drowning in Houston.

Go back to your coloring book. This is a conversation for people above the 3rd grade.
 


<< Catholic public schools here in Toronto start sex education at 3rd grade with very little going into HS since most has been taught before the teenaged years. Parents are given their own text books so they can complement the in-school training. Abstinence is covered as are birth-control methods. >>




3rd grade? wow.
 
Texmaster ~ maybe I read that too fast... I think there's definitely room for both teaching, and sex ed courses should stress the very viable option of abstinance. The best sex ed course is completely unbiased, and presents information in an honest, straightforward way - letting the kids make their own choices.



<< it is a nice alternative for parents who dont want their middle school children coming home with condoms >>



Would it be better for parents to come home and catch their middle school children screwing without protection on their bed?

Thinks most parents need to spend more time with their kids nowadays,
~kitten
 
The schools are supposed to educate, the parents are supposed to teach Morals. Teaching abstinence is the parents duty not the schools. This is just another case of a generation of parents trying to blame the educational system for their horrendous parenting skills.
 


<< I must be getting old... I can remember when &quot;safe sex&quot; meant having a padded headboard 🙂 >>




hahaha
 


<< The schools are supposed to educate, the parents are supposed to teach Morals. Teaching abstinence is the parents duty not the schools. This is just another case of a generation of parents trying to blame the educational system for their horrendous parenting skills. >>



As always we can count on Red Dawn to put things into perspective.
 
i think abstinence classes are a good idea...

if the statistics from my human sexuality class are right, STD's will soon be so rampant and kill/harm enough people that the only people that won't be affected are those smart enough to wait and who find a partner with the same ideals...

survival of the fittest... let the morons screw whoever they want, protected or not, it's their choice and they'll have to deal with the consequences, usually forever since most major STDs are uncurable...

the only thing that pisses me off is that we as taxpayers and insurance subscribers will suffer because money will have to be spent to treat these ppl... the illnesses are completely preventable but ppl are too stubborn to listen... just like what we are dealing with now with those idiot smokers...

so if abstinence classes do reach some kids, good for them...
 


<< This coming from the guy who made fun of people drowning in Houston. >>

The fact that I mentioned that Texas had a problem with their sewers backing up was in no ways a joke aimed at your fellow Texans not being smart enough to get to higher ground.

Obviously it was your Parents who should have practiced abstinence.
 


<< Personally, I think that &quot;Abstinance only&quot; government-funded programs will do much more harm than good. Let parents teach their children morals. So much of that stems from the home. >>



thereds ~ what am I, chopped liver? 😉

Actually likes liver,
~kitten >^.^<
 
The schools are supposed to educate, the parents are supposed to teach Morals. Teaching abstinence is the parents duty not the schools. This is just another case of a generation of parents trying to blame the educational system for their horrendous parenting skills.

But it's hard for parents to teach morals if society constantly undermines their teachings.
 
parenting will only get sh!tt!er as the current generation of teens become parents... we as a society should try to do whatever we can to help the poor kids of these parents cuz i don't want my kids hangin around w/ f'd up losers... if the government can help, let em go ahead, we give em enough money why not let them do something productive...



<< The schools are supposed to educate, the parents are supposed to teach Morals. Teaching abstinence is the parents duty not the schools. This is just another case of a generation of parents trying to blame the educational system for their horrendous parenting skills. >>

 


<< I know none of this was eloquently worded, but, once again, I'll elaborate if necessary after work. >>



Can you elaborate on the blow job part please? I'm unsure to what exactly that is. 😉

But my question is, why can't they teach both? How much could it possibly cost to teach abstinence? You don't need any devices or paraphernalia to teach it.

But to teach abstinence without teaching safe sex is irresponsible... just as i think it's irresponsible to teach safe sex without teaching abstinence.
 
Texmaster,

Yup. And this in a Catholic school system - publically funded. The beauty of the system is that parents opposed to sex education always say &quot;let me teach my kids about sex, not the schools&quot;. But how many actually do good enough sex education other than some crappy 2 minute superficial talk? This way it puts the ball in their court and they can live up to their own words.
 
he schools are supposed to educate, the parents are supposed to teach Morals. Teaching abstinence is the parents duty not the schools. This is just another case of a generation of parents trying to blame the educational system for their horrendous parenting skills.

From the sound of it it's not being taught as morals, it's being taught as a 100% effective way of avoiding STD's &amp; children.

As far as age, I had sex ed in gradeschool (4th and 5th grade, specifically).

Viper GTS
 
Teaching abstinence is a major waste of taxpayers money. Unless the piss poor Parents of today get off their fat asses and start being real parents the next generation is going to be as worthless as GenX.
 


<< survival of the fittest... let the morons screw whoever they want, protected or not, it's their choice and they'll have to deal with the consequences, usually forever since most major STDs are uncurable... >>



littled480 ~ I really have to get back to work now, but... that was a really bright thing of you to say. Let morons stay morons, right? Don't even bother teaching them how they could be safe, so they can kill themselves off with STD's, right? Survival of the fittest, baby.

For your information, most of the &quot;Major STDs&quot; are incurable, if you're talking about AIDS, herpes, etc. However, the MAJORITY of people getting STDs are contracting fully curable ones, that could do permanent damage if not caught early (i.e. it's estimated 1/4 sexually active people between the ages of 18 and 26 have chlamydia, which usually has NO symptoms, but will cause infertility if not caught and cured).

One of the most common STDs around today is HPV, and most people don't have a clue as to what that is. Do you?

Moralpanic ~ sure, allow me to elaborate... 😛😛😛 I agree with you, though - BOTH should be taught. Sex ed programs should obviously include the benefits of abstinance... the most harmful program of all, IMO, would be an &quot;Abstinance ONLY&quot; one.

Back to work,
~kitten
 
Red Dawn,


Lets take your quote in all its idiocy and infancy:

<<<BTW, How Texass Doing? I see their sewers have backed up so badly that Old GW Declared parts of Southern Texas a Disaster Area, something that he could have honestly done before the flooding. >>>>


And I replied and gave you the chance to retract that statement:

&quot;I expect you to make fun of my state but to make fun of a disaster where 12 people have died is even low for you. You really should be ashamed of yourself . &quot;

And your response.

&quot;I am, I misspelled Texas. &quot;


Your maturity level shines through and everyone sees it.

Your opinion means nothing because you lack even the basic teenage maturity level in your posts.

Pathetic.
 
The curriculum is as follows: 3rd grade (taught about parts of male and female anatomy; how pregnancy works at a cellular level &quot;male egg fertilizes female egg&quot; type of thing), 4th grade (guys/girls separated - invited to ask questions about sex/their body; girls taught about their cycle).
 
5th grade-8th grade (more in-depth teachings on sexuality including topics like homosexuality, abortion, abstinence etc.), 9th-12th grade (tested on knowledge of STDs, pregnancy risks throughout the cycle, biological side of sexuality). And all along parents are given supplementary material so they can go through it with their kids.
 


<< Your opinion means nothing because you lack even the basic teenage maturity level in your posts. >>

Nice try Texmasser. Fortunately you are not in a position to make those judgements as you have yet to establish yourself as a person who commands any sort of respect.
 
If you would have read my post illiteratekitten, you would have seen the first thing I said was that the classes are a good idea... Just to be clear I was talking about abstinence classes in addition to the already existing sex-ed...

You said: The kids who are going to have sex... are going to have sex, abstinance program or not. SAFE sex needs to be taught so that the kids making the decision to engage in sexual activity do so safely.

You make it seeem like abstinence is not a viable option. I think it should be the primary option. Everyone knows that sex is risky, for diseases and pregnancy risk. If kids are going to be that stubborn and stupid, it really is their fault. You said it's a decision, and when ppl make a decision they have to weigh the consequences, period.

The majority of STD's are incurable, for my own knowledge, please name me some that are completely erradicable (not just symptom alleviation)...




<<

<< survival of the fittest... let the morons screw whoever they want, protected or not, it's their choice and they'll have to deal with the consequences, usually forever since most major STDs are uncurable... >>



littled480 ~ I really have to get back to work now, but... that was a really bright thing of you to say. Let morons stay morons, right? Don't even bother teaching them how they could be safe, so they can kill themselves off with STD's, right? Survival of the fittest, baby.

For your information, most of the &quot;Major STDs&quot; are incurable, if you're talking about AIDS, herpes, etc. However, the MAJORITY of people getting STDs are contracting fully curable ones, that could do permanent damage if not caught early (i.e. it's estimated 1/4 sexually active people between the ages of 18 and 26 have chlamydia, which usually has NO symptoms, but will cause infertility if not caught and cured).

One of the most common STDs around today is HPV, and most people don't have a clue as to what that is. Do you?

Moralpanic ~ sure, allow me to elaborate... 😛😛😛 I agree with you, though - BOTH should be taught. Sex ed programs should obviously include the benefits of abstinance... the most harmful program of all, IMO, would be an &quot;Abstinance ONLY&quot; one.

Back to work,
~kitten >>

 
hey Tex, i'm in houston myself and i completely agree w/ u on this topic and about Red... don't waste your time arguing with him...

btw Red, how would he &quot;establish himself as a person who commands any sort of respect.&quot; ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top