O-Trap;697597 wrote:To be fair, I think you're assuming a lot of what makes sense to you is "common." I have heard teens say things like:

- "If it's during her period, a girl can't get pregnant."
- "If a girl is on top, she can't get pregnant."
- "If you pull out, you can't get pregnant."
- "If you use a condom, you can't get pregnant." (I've heard this one a dozen different times or so.)

In all four of those examples, the possibility still exists. However, unless someone has had the opportunity to learn it, they can't know it. I didn't know a stove would burn my hand until I learned it, either through education (someone told me), observation (I saw it happen), or experience ("F***ING SON OF A BITCH!!!"). It might seem like common sense, but unless I've learned it, there's no legitimate grounds for expecting me to know it.

I'm not saying that our kids don't need educated about the consequences of sexual activity. I just have issues with allowing the government to do the educating at taxpayer expense.

I Wear Pants;697604 wrote:O-Trap. Obviously absitnence needs to be mentioned in sex ed classes becasue it is the only way to be certain you won't get pregnant or an STD but I do not think it should be the focal point. A teacher harping on about how sex is bad will not get across to kids.

I don't think the message needs to be "Sex = bad" in order to focus on abstinence. I do think it should be the main purpose to educate the kids on the social value of remaining abstinent. The more sex a person has, protected or not, the increased chance that they get pregnant.

Early pregnancy (especially at the high school level), statistically, means less education, a lower lifetime income, a lower standard of living, a higher chance to be connected to violent crime (either as the criminal or the victim), and a shorter life expectancy. All of these are connected of course, but that's a chain reaction that I think should be emphasized in sex-ed for this simple reason: It's reality.

I would never contend that it would be good to tell teens that sex is bad, in and of itself (1950s Evangelicals, anyone?). I have NO problem explaining that, statistically, you run the risk of getting pregnant every time you have sex, and that you will statistically have a much more difficult life if that pregnancy does occur.

believer;697666 wrote:I'm not saying that our kids don't need educated about the consequences of sexual activity. I just have issues with allowing the government to do the educating at taxpayer expense.

Hmm ... you know ... that's not a terrible view. I'm really not sure why a school's health teacher couldn't adequately do the same.

Then again, I've met some health teachers I wouldn't trust to teach a child about sex.

Sexual education is primarily the responsibility of the parents. The local community can also play a supplemental role through public or private organizations. At the state level the role should be minimal if any at all. The federal government should not have any role at all. The constitution gives them no authority.

Its high time the unconstitutional federal funding of planned parenthood came to an end.

majorspark;697689 wrote:Sexual education is primarily the responsibility of the parents. The local community can also play a supplemental role through public or private organizations. At the state level the role should be minimal if any at all. The federal government should not have any role at all. The constitution gives them no authority.

Its high time the unconstitutional federal funding of planned parenthood came to an end.

The problem is, many parents have kids because THEY were not properly educated on sex, and so they really have insufficient knowledge to even educate the kids. Same thing with communities where this is a common trend.

I do think there does need to be proper, competent education outside those two sources, as they are often ill-equipped.

elbuckeye28;696670 wrote:First of all, that is about as bad of an analogy as possible as consequences of touching the hot stove are immediate and certainly negative. Obviously a teenager can comprehend that touching a hot stove will offer no positive outcome, and the negative consequences will be felt almost simultaneously to the actually touching. That is usually figured out by children no more than a couple years old.

Now compare that to sex. There is a real and immediate positive gratification. In addition, it is satisfies one of nature's more innate yet strongest urges. Moral and psychological differences aside, there are many biological factors that are contributing to these urges. In addition, the negative consequences (pregnancy, STDs, negative emotional effects) are delayed and not continuous. Therefore, the positive effects are immediate and consistent, while the negative effects are delayed and inconsistent.

Try persuading teenagers(or adults for that matter), that something that satisfies natural urges and feels good should be delayed for another 5-10 years(or whenever they get married), by just offering a moral argument that may be very inconsistent to their own worldview. Research supports that it isn't very effective, and they are going to do it anyways without the requisite knowledge of the safer methods. At least there is evidence that by offering comprehensive sex education, there is an increased usage of safe sex methods.

So people / kids can understand that eating deep fried, bacon wrapped, triple cheese burgers and downing a couple pitchers of beer a few nights a week, MIGHT lead to future health problems 10.15, 20 years down the road, but can't grasp the concept that sex, MIGHT lead to a pregnancy in 9 months from when it happens or an STD in a couple of years?

Your right, go ahead and spend it like we can just pick it off trees! (or just print more ) but my guess is, there just won't be enough $$$ to fix stupid!

O-Trap;697760 wrote:The problem is, many parents have kids because THEY were not properly educated on sex, and so they really have insufficient knowledge to even educate the kids. Same thing with communities where this is a common trend.

I do think there does need to be proper, competent education outside those two sources, as they are often ill-equipped.

I disagree that they are "often" ill equipped. I think the majority of parents and communities in this nation are able to deal with the issue and have the family values, love for community, knowledge, and finances to do so. Yes there are some that lack the aforementioned and are thus "ill equipped". As I mention in my previous post, a governmental entity outside those sources can and has the authority to play a role in equipping those that need it.

I Wear Pants;697604 wrote:Center you keep saying that sex ed is wasted and doesn't work even though you've never shown anything that says the same. I have shown many studies and examples of how and why better sex ed results in fewer unwanted pregnancies and stds.

I didn't say teenagers don't listen to anything. But I did say they won't listen to "don't have sex" because that really isn't reasonable. Especially not for someone raging with hormones.
.

That is absolutely incorrect, Pants.

What I said in another thread (in SB forum, I think) was that getting more detailed sexed doesn't do anything and that the teenage pregnancies are still rising.
Look at teen pregnancy numbers in 1970 and look at the numbers today. What is going wrong with those numbers?
Do you think that they taught better sexed back then?

Yes you have indeed shown pics, graphs and whatnot. But they didn't answer any of MY questions and/or dilemma's. At all. Instead, you just keep saying I'm wrong.

Gotcha, you got me on another thread with this same topic once.

I Wear Pants;697811 wrote:

Gotcha, you got me on another thread with this same topic once.

Richard!

Shane Falco;697789 wrote:So people / kids can understand that eating deep fried, bacon wrapped, triple cheese burgers and downing a couple pitchers of beer a few nights a week, MIGHT lead to future health problems 10.15, 20 years down the road, but can't grasp the concept that sex, MIGHT lead to a pregnancy in 9 months from when it happens or an STD in a couple of years?

Your right, go ahead and spend it like we can just pick it off trees! (or just print more ) but my guess is, there just won't be enough $$$ to fix stupid!

You really have to be joking to be making up these examples. Have you seen the obesity rates in this country? Obviously a lot of people struggle with the concept as well.

Besides it doesn't cost a ton of money to have a health teacher teach a comprehensive sex education program instead of teaching an abstinence only program.

I don't know how much more indepth that schools get get in regards to sexed besides getting an instructional video from Adam & Eve or something.

Just because it's in the curriculum somewhere doesn't mean it's being taught. Sex ed at most high schools is still pretty far from where it should be.

majorspark;697791 wrote:I disagree that they are "often" ill equipped. I think the majority of parents and communities in this nation are able to deal with the issue and have the family values, love for community, knowledge, and finances to do so. Yes there are some that lack the aforementioned and are thus "ill equipped". As I mention in my previous post, a governmental entity outside those sources can and has the authority to play a role in equipping those that need it.

Come visit me sometime. I can't think of too many single parents here that have any sort of community support (everyone pretty much keeps to themselves unless it's family), and most are also financially unable to afford to feed their children apart from government assistance. Many didn't finish high school, and many were simply never taught the value of being a good parent.

Pretty shitty situation, but a common one in some areas.

And then those people never get good jobs that allow them to leave those areas. So they stay there. Their kids don't get taught well at home because their parents weren't and get the same crummy education they got. Many make the same mistakes and the cycle repeats over and over again.

O-Trap;698110 wrote:Come visit me sometime. I can't think of too many single parents here that have any sort of community support (everyone pretty much keeps to themselves unless it's family), and most are also financially unable to afford to feed their children apart from government assistance. Many didn't finish high school, and many were simply never taught the value of being a good parent..

I am sure if I visited you the situation would be just as you described. These circumstances and worse exist but they do not reflect the nation's families and communities as a whole. Most have support outside the state. By support I do not mean just financial.

Neither of my parents graduated high school. I was conceived as a result of premarital sex. My mom left us when I was 11. She gave full custody of myself and my siblings to my dad just to escape the bounds of marriage. A marriage she only engaged in because she was pregnant and it was the right thing to do. We visited my mom every other weekend but that was it.

My mom engaged in the use of illegal drugs in the presence of myself and my siblings (all minors). At times while driving. As a minor child I witnessed her illegal growing operation. My younger brother and I both got wasted for the first time in her custody.

My dad was basically a single parent. Times were tough in the early 80's. My dad worked in the coal strip mines as a heavy equipment operator. He lost his job but other than unemployment never sought any public assistance, even though he would have qualified for it. He always had our school lunch money covered. 85 cents at the time. He drove junk vehicles that my brothers and I were ashamed to be seen in. We refused to allow him to drop us off at the front door of the school.

There was no cable TV and we turned our antenna with a pipe wrench and braced it with a stick of wood hammered into the ground. Damn wind would foul up my favorite shows the dukes of hazzard and dallas.

My parents never educated me on the issue of sex. My dad had a brief conversation with me once but it was too late. I learned about sex from my friends in school and porn. I learned about the plumbing in jr high health class.

I met a young girl when I was 16. We have been married now for nearly 19yrs. In the summer after our freshman year in college she became pregnant. She dropped out of school and never finished. I finished my bachelors degree with the added difficulty.

We refused WIC because they made my wife feel uncomfortable and required our children to be physically examined. They made my wife feel like she was welfare scum. Not that those that seek social welfare are scum. Just how the workers at the time made my wife feel. I told her we would take care of our children on our own. And we did. They are all healthy teenagers now.

O-Trap;698110 wrote:Pretty shitty situation, but a common one in some areas.

I have been through a pretty shitty situation. I have shared some. There is more that I can't share. I know that there are some out there that have far worse situations to deal with.

Personally I have sought to rectify the sexual education that I lacked. I have spoken with all my children in graphic detail concerning this issue. It was very uncomfortable but it had to be done. I learned from my parents and my own mistakes. I did this in the hope that my children do not repeat them.

Maybe I am wrong but I think you and I probably see eye to eye on the level of governance that is best effective to handle those that fall outside the successful family unit and necessitates public intervention. My point was practically it will not be successful at the federal level and constitutionally the feds have no authority to meddle in these matter.

O-Trap;697670 wrote:Then again, I've met some health teachers I wouldn't trust to teach a child about sex.

True...these days the teacher is probably giving her students "hands-on" training.

I Wear Pants;698113 wrote:And then those people never get good jobs that allow them to leave those areas. So they stay there. Their kids don't get taught well at home because their parents weren't and get the same crummy education they got. Many make the same mistakes and the cycle repeats over and over again.

Bingo.

majorspark;698168 wrote:I am sure if I visited you the situation would be just as you described. These circumstances and worse exist but they do not reflect the nation's families and communities as a whole. Most have support outside the state. By support I do not mean just financial.

Neither of my parents graduated high school. I was conceived as a result of premarital sex. My mom left us when I was 11. She gave full custody of myself and my siblings to my dad just to escape the bounds of marriage. A marriage she only engaged in because she was pregnant and it was the right thing to do. We visited my mom every other weekend but that was it.

My mom engaged in the use of illegal drugs in the presence of myself and my siblings (all minors). At times while driving. As a minor child I witnessed her illegal growing operation. My younger brother and I both got wasted for the first time in her custody.

My dad was basically a single parent. Times were tough in the early 80's. My dad worked in the coal strip mines as a heavy equipment operator. He lost his job but other than unemployment never sought any public assistance, even though he would have qualified for it. He always had our school lunch money covered. 85 cents at the time. He drove junk vehicles that my brothers and I were ashamed to be seen in. We refused to allow him to drop us off at the front door of the school.

There was no cable TV and we turned our antenna with a pipe wrench and braced it with a stick of wood hammered into the ground. Damn wind would foul up my favorite shows the dukes of hazzard and dallas.

My parents never educated me on the issue of sex. My dad had a brief conversation with me once but it was too late. I learned about sex from my friends in school and porn. I learned about the plumbing in jr high health class.

I met a young girl when I was 16. We have been married now for nearly 19yrs. In the summer after our freshman year in college she became pregnant. She dropped out of school and never finished. I finished my bachelors degree with the added difficulty.

We refused WIC because they made my wife feel uncomfortable and required our children to be physically examined. They made my wife feel like she was welfare scum. Not that those that seek social welfare are scum. Just how the workers at the time made my wife feel. I told her we would take care of our children on our own. And we did. They are all healthy teenagers now.

I have been through a pretty shitty situation. I have shared some. There is more that I can't share. I know that there are some out there that have far worse situations to deal with.

Personally I have sought to rectify the sexual education that I lacked. I have spoken with all my children in graphic detail concerning this issue. It was very uncomfortable but it had to be done. I learned from my parents and my own mistakes. I did this in the hope that my children do not repeat them.

Maybe I am wrong but I think you and I probably see eye to eye on the level of governance that is best effective to handle those that fall outside the successful family unit and necessitates public intervention. My point was practically it will not be successful at the federal level and constitutionally the feds have no authority to meddle in these matter.

I applaud your ability to beat the odds. It is so unfortunate that the odds are what they are. I know a LOT of kids in the position you were in as a youngster (except that even the legal guardian is, in many cases, grossly entrenched in substance abuse). I also applaud your father for making the best of a difficult situation.

I agree that it is ineffective at the federal level, as well.

Your upbringing sounds very similar to a lot of the kids I mentor. It really hit home to read it. I hope that most of them are able to beat the odds like you did, and I'm doing what I can ... but the odds are what they are for a reason, so I feel like I have to brace myself.

believer;698171 wrote:True...these days the teacher is probably giving her students "hands-on" training.

lulzd, even though this is a serious issue.

I just finished reading the number of posts after the original one I wrote to start this thread, and there are definitely good arguments on both sides. I can understand why someone who is anti-abortion wouldn't want to have their taxes going toward supporting this, but then again, there are a ton of things you could argue aren't worthy of your tax dollars and in the end of the day we all indirectly support things we don't believe in.

My whole issue with cutting funding to PP, is that for a lot of women, and men for that matter, this is the only means of getting important health screenings, many that have nothing to do with sex, abortion or STDs. I am sure that there are other places that provide these services for the same low cost, but Planned Parenthood is by far the biggest and the most accessible.


FYI here are some of the services provided to men

checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems
colon cancer screening
erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
jock itch exam and treatment
male infertility screening and referral
premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
routine physical exams
testicular cancer screenings
prostate cancer screenings
urinary tract infections testing and treatment
vasectomy

Websurfinbird;703548 wrote:I just finished reading the number of posts after the original one I wrote to start this thread, and there are definitely good arguments on both sides. I can understand why someone who is anti-abortion wouldn't want to have their taxes going toward supporting this, but then again, there are a ton of things you could argue aren't worthy of your tax dollars and in the end of the day we all indirectly support things we don't believe in.

My whole issue with cutting funding to PP, is that for a lot of women, and men for that matter, this is the only means of getting important health screenings, many that have nothing to do with sex, abortion or STDs. I am sure that there are other places that provide these services for the same low cost, but Planned Parenthood is by far the biggest and the most accessible.


FYI here are some of the services provided to men

checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems
colon cancer screening
erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
jock itch exam and treatment
male infertility screening and referral
premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
routine physical exams
testicular cancer screenings
prostate cancer screenings
urinary tract infections testing and treatment
vasectomy

Yes, there are many places to get these services...they are called Doctors.

While I'm sure that Planned Parenhood does some good for some people, IMO the agenda that they push should not be supported by tax dollars.

Websurfinbird;703548 wrote:checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems
colon cancer screening
erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
jock itch exam and treatment
male infertility screening and referral
premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
routine physical exams
testicular cancer screenings
prostate cancer screenings
urinary tract infections testing and treatment
vasectomy

As a man, I disagree with some of these being necessary as vital treatments.

If you are on a tight budget, then infertility in men can't be a huge concern, as you cannot likely afford to support a child adequately if you cannot afford treatment for infertility.

Also, I don't think the public should fund someone coming in for an exam or treatment because he can't keep the gunpowder in the cannon long enough.

Everything else seems pretty legitimate, I think.

wkfan;703592 wrote:Yes, there are many places to get these services...they are called Doctors.

There are some who cannot afford a doctor visit.

I agree that it should not be the legal responsibility of the rest to take care of those in this segment of society, but I can sympathize.

O-Trap;703595 wrote:I agree that it should not be the legal responsibility of the rest to take care of those in this segment of society, but I can sympathize.

I agree with both of your sentiments, but this is not a justification for the tremendous expense of public dollars, IMO.

wkfan;703598 wrote:I agree with both of your sentiments, but this is not a justification for the tremendous expense of public dollars, IMO.

Again, no disagreement.

It's tough seeing so many people that need help and not wanting everyone to pitch in and help them.

But letting one's emotions dictate his/her beliefs can lead to problems, as often there are more needs than resources, and a governing body needs to only address the needs as resources allow.

In a sense, legal obligations should be out of heartless logic. Our own convictions regarding charity and assistance should be what dictates our willingness to act in helping others.