PDA

View Full Version : Sexual UN-education!


El Sitherino
01-16-2005, 09:19 AM
fear for your teenagers mind. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1382189,00.html)

I'm all for people wanting to be abstinent, but lying to children and forcing it upon others, that's just idiotic. They're willing to jeopardize peoples safety at the cost of promoting their own beliefs? This has gone a bit too far and it must stop.

Pie™
01-16-2005, 09:21 AM
You heard it;

SEX KILLS!


Oh wait...

jon_hill987
01-16-2005, 09:30 AM
Its like some sort of brainwashing

'What do you also hear will keep you safe?' she asked. 'Condoms,' they answered.

'Do they keep you safe?' she asked. 'No,' they chorused.

Why? is it so important for Bush to force his ideals on a nation? and why is he so against sex before marage?

ridiculus, most of the teenages will still have sex, they just won't use comdoms.

El Sitherino
01-16-2005, 09:35 AM
The kids that get this kind of education and take those pledges usually end up getting more STD's, they are less likely to use a condom, and are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies than their non-pledging peers. Gee, I wonder why :rolleyes:.

NOONE TELLS THEM HOW TO USE A CONDOM!

Kain
01-16-2005, 09:47 AM
*does the Geedubya = Monarchy dance*

TiE23
01-16-2005, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
NOONE TELLS THEM HOW TO USE A CONDOM! Keep one in your wallet, rip it open, roll it on, ready to go?
:p

TiE

swphreak
01-16-2005, 10:05 AM
"Don't have sex, because you will get pregnant and die!"

"But if you do touch each other, you will get Chlamydia... and DIE."

:rolleyes:

We're doomed.

El Sitherino
01-16-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by TiE 23
Keep one in your wallet, rip it open, roll it on, ready to go?
:p Keeping it in your wallet is bad. And condoms tend to tear rather easily, it's kind of a strategy to get those things (or perhaps that's just a problem stuck with the mediums and larges.... *shrugs*)

Hermie
01-16-2005, 10:17 AM
It seems that marriage makes you immune to sexual transmittable diseases...





:confused:

jon_hill987
01-16-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Herminator
It seems that marriage makes you immune to sexual transmittable diseases...


Well of course it does, thats wh... Oh, hang on, wait a min, that is really f***ing dumb.

Leper Messiah
01-16-2005, 10:32 AM
the more you fight an enemy, the more like them you become, in Americas case that means becoming a nation governed by religious extremists.


Originally posted by Kain
*does the Geedubya = Monarchy dance*

theres nothing wrong with monarchs we've got a pretty harmless one

•-BLaCKouT-•
01-16-2005, 10:41 AM
Hmmm, I've just read the link.

With a bit of luck, these lying censor-happy morons will, by their own teaching, abstain themselves into extinction leaving the rest of us to make our own decisions. :rolleyes: Be they informed decisions or otherwise. ;)

Edit:

A recent report led by Californian Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman revealed some federally funded programmes taught pupils that Aids could be spread through sweat and tears, abortion led to sterility and suicide, pregnancy could result from touching someone's genitals and oral sex could give you cancer.
:indif:

B.

Hermie
01-16-2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Leper Messiah
theres nothing wrong with monarchs we've got a pretty harmless one
Yeah, ours only wanders around and looks at art and conserts. And he has a speach on new years eve. and he looks scary when he smiles.

weiderudare
01-16-2005, 10:53 AM
Yes! condoms are useless! Abortion is evil!
Just cause Bush didn't get any when he was young doesn't mean no one else can :p

jon_hill987
01-16-2005, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Leper Messiah
the more you fight an enemy, the more like them you become, in Americas case that means becoming a nation governed by religious extremists.

It is quite true, when any leader starts twisting the words of a religion for their own ends it is a bad thing. George W Bush will soon be no better than the "terrorists" he is fighting.

RpTheHotrod
01-16-2005, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Herminator
It seems that marriage makes you immune to sexual transmittable diseases...





:confused:
They are saying, sex with one person is safer than 50 people having sex with one person.

I for one totally agree with sex after marriage......but in this day and time...that's just not gonna happen. A few will wait, sure, but overall...it's not going to happen. They are attempting to bring back a "safer" generation. You gotta admit, there's sluts and whores all over the places these days.

I'd prefer a society where I know when I marry my wife, that she has no chance of having STDs.

jon_hill987
01-16-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
They are saying, sex with one person is safer than 50 people having sex with one person.

Yes but you don't have to be maried to have sex with just one person...

GothiX
01-16-2005, 11:19 AM
Besides, There's also people who have sex with eachother because they love eachother, not because they just like having sex or something :rolleyes:

El Sitherino
01-16-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by GothiX
Besides, There's also people who have sex with eachother because they love eachother, not because they just like having sex or something :rolleyes: Precisely, lovesex > lustsex.

•-BLaCKouT-•
01-16-2005, 11:45 AM
and Lustsex > "with my MOUTH? Are you kidding, that'll give me CANCER!"

Originally posted by jon_hill987
Yes but you don't have to be maried to have sex with just one person...
True. They also seem to skip over the fact that a lot of people who are married don't just have sex with one person. :indif:

B.

El Sitherino
01-16-2005, 11:49 AM
Very true.

GothiX
01-16-2005, 11:56 AM
Besides; principles or not, your government shouldn't force lies onto you. I mean, if Bush wouldn't tell the people that aliens were staying in the White House, people would be angry at the government. But something like this IS acceptable? I don't think so.

jon_hill987
01-16-2005, 12:05 PM
There are aliens stayng at the white house?

I always new it wasn't a weather ballon that crashed at roswell...

El Sitherino
01-16-2005, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
They are saying, sex with one person is safer than 50 people having sex with one person.

but would you prefer them having sex with one person unprotected and not being cautious, or them being protected and cautious about it?

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I for one totally agree with sex after marriage.
I agree with it too. Do I follow it? no.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
They are attempting to bring back a "safer" generation.
no what they're doing is neglecting to teach kids to be safe and spreading lies. I don't mind if a kid waits, but telling kids that condoms don't work, and sex before marriage will cause you to get cancer and whatever other crap they say, I don't agree with.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
You gotta admit, there's sluts and whores all over the places these days.

there have ALWAYS been sluts and whores, especially in the western societies.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'd prefer a society where I know when I marry my wife, that she has no chance of having STDs. Abstinence has nothing to do with making society safer, it's just a belief and lifestyle. What they need to teach is safe sex, get yourself and your partner tested, take precautions.

Me, I get bloodtest. Myself and my partner, if she doesn't want to take one, then too bad for her, I will no longer bother with anything with her. But most girls are willing to do bloodtests and when we get that result of "you're clean" back, we express our love. Abstinence isn't the only way you can be 100% sure of being disease free, just get a blood test, everytime before I do it, blood test, even if we've done it before. Things happen ya know.

The thing is, just be careful and don't do stupid ****.

ET Warrior
01-16-2005, 02:40 PM
Yeah......that's stupid.

And I'm not sure what you mean by bringing back a safer generation RP...back in the day promiscuity was done, it just wasn't TALKED about, it was a quiet thing.

At least, back in early days of the U.S.

Back in ancient civilizations anyone of high rank/standing had sex with pretty much who they wanted when they wanted.

STD's became widespread mainly because most people didn't undestand them, and they thought that having sex with a virgin cured STD's.

RpTheHotrod
01-16-2005, 02:58 PM
I'm talking about the "good ole days" of past generations.

That doesn't exist now...and it pretty much never will.

I'm just sayin, this is an attempt by them to "bring it back".

As for oral giving cancer, studies have shown it's true in some cases...not 100%.....a pretty small chance....but it's there.

Kain
01-16-2005, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Leper Messiah
theres nothing wrong with monarchs we've got a pretty harmless one

Assuming you're talking about living in Great Britain, the monarchs are just a pretty face put on to sooth public relations. Official decisions have been made by the Prime Minister since...forgot the year.

Atleast, thats what I got from everything dealing with Tony Blair.

Not to mention if the Bush's turned the US into a monarchy(and won the soon-to-follow revolution and govermental mutiny that would undoubtable follow), it would be the most horrifying thing released on the planet since the using of the atomic bomb.

ET Warrior
01-16-2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm talking about the "good ole days" of past generations.

That doesn't exist now...and it pretty much never will.

And never did. We're fooled by the fact that they didn't TALK about sex back in the "good ole days", but they still HAD the sex.

El Sitherino
01-16-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
As for oral giving cancer, studies have shown it's true in some cases...not 100%.....a pretty small chance....but it's there. The hell? Source?
I'm sorry but that sounds like a load of crap. *shrugs*

Originally posted by ET Warrior
And never did. We're fooled by the fact that they didn't TALK about sex back in the "good ole days", but they still HAD the sex. and a lot of it.

Leper Messiah
01-16-2005, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Kain
Assuming you're talking about living in Great Britain, the monarchs are just a pretty face put on to sooth public relations. Official decisions have been made by the Prime Minister since...forgot the year.

Atleast, thats what I got from everything dealing with Tony Blair.

Not to mention if the Bush's turned the US into a monarchy(and won the soon-to-follow revolution and govermental mutiny that would undoubtable follow), it would be the most horrifying thing released on the planet since the using of the atomic bomb.

actually our Queen is the first monarch in this country to really not take a big role in the politics of the country. She is our head of state (not, as much as he likes to think so, the Prime Minister) with a great deal of power, no less in fact than any post civil war monarch. With the current Queen her policy has always been not to interfere or get involved with the Government, a move which has enabled her to avoid really seriously annoying anyone leading to the perception she is largely symbolic. When and if we get a King Charles the Third however the monarchy might become more significant again. Incidently if Charles makes it through his reign without doing anything silly he'll be the first King Charles to avoid starting any kind of internal conflict in the country.

but hopefully we'll keep our sex education program intact....(such as it is, British teen pregnancy is not exactly at a low rate)

RpTheHotrod
01-16-2005, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
The hell? Source?
I'm sorry but that sounds like a load of crap. *shrugs*

and a lot of it.


Feel free to look it up. Honestly don't want to right now...but that's been a known fact for quite some time.

ET Warrior
01-16-2005, 07:08 PM
Interesting....considering my father the doctor laughed out loud when I told him that people say you can get cancer from oral sex. :dozey:

legameboy
01-16-2005, 08:18 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18124361.500

You too could be that one in ten thousand. ;)

•-BLaCKouT-•
01-16-2005, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by legameboy
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18124361.500
You too could be that one in ten thousand. ;)
OMG! That's more risky than crossing the road!! But wait...
Originally posted by New Scientist
The risk, thankfully, is tiny. Only around 1 in 10,000 people develop oral tumours each year, and most cases are probably caused by two other popular recreational pursuits: smoking and drinking.
So not even a third of those cases are caused by oral sex, so the chances are actually less than 1 in 30,000?

I'm going to go and look up the statistics on winning the lottery, being gunned down by a sniper, being hit by a meteorite... oh and the statistics for contracting potentially deadly STDs resulting from a lack of education combined with a "This is wrong and there is no other way" attitude. :indif:

Originally posted by ET Warrior
And never did. We're fooled by the fact that they didn't TALK about sex back in the "good ole days", but they still HAD the sex.
Yup. And that's what they're trying to bring back! ;)

Originally posted by InsaneSith
there have ALWAYS been sluts and whores, especially in the western societies.
Exactly, that's why they call it the oldest profession. Although, while I'm on the subject, if it's the oldest one, then where did the blokes get the money to pay for it?

:xp: B.

Needed to insert some kind of lightness in here...

Sabretooth
01-17-2005, 12:23 AM
That just sucks. Well, atleast for the next generation...

El Sitherino
01-17-2005, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by •-BLaCKouT-•
Exactly, that's why they call it the oldest profession. Although, while I'm on the subject, if it's the oldest one, then where did the blokes get the money to pay for it?
They used to trade foods and such for services. :)

or was that a rhetorical question?

•-BLaCKouT-•
01-17-2005, 06:33 AM
Kinda :xp:

B.

El Sitherino
01-17-2005, 06:36 AM
Oh.... well now people know incase they really wanted to know. :)

Troopr-Undr-Fir
01-17-2005, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
...back in the day promiscuity was done, it just wasn't TALKED about, it was a quiet thing.

At least, back in early days of the U.S.

Back in ancient civilizations anyone of high rank/standing had sex with pretty much who they wanted when they wanted.

You're sounding as if you were actually there :xp:


I don't see the big deal. You have your sex organs for a reason. People/kids are going to experiment wether you like it or not. You can't surpress that urge no matter how much you think you can.

It is more of a matter of trust. If you actually trust that person, then you can decide what to do.

And yes I do know that sex is personal, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun :D


Sex = Good

Paranoia = Bad

ET Warrior
01-17-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by legameboy
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18124361.500

You too could be that one in ten thousand. ;)

Of course you'd have to be giving oral sex to someone who already HAS the papilloma virus, which means you weren't very careful about your choice in partner which is a result of poor education on the subject.

Mike Windu
01-17-2005, 08:28 PM
Boy, it's a good thing I bought these HIV resistant undergarments...:D

toms
01-18-2005, 08:44 AM
There is no federal quality control of the material, just the edict to teach abstinence and limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.

Scary country...

She is banned by law from promoting the benefits of correctly used condoms.

Scary country...

Teens who 'pledge' wait around 18 months longer than their peers to have sex and have fewer partners, but once the pledge is broken only 40 per cent of males use condoms compared with 60 per cent of 'non-pledgers'.
Joint research by Columbia and Yale Universities found that 88 per cent of Americans between the ages of 12 and 18 who pledge abstinence do not wait until they get married to have sex, compared with 99 per cent of 'non-pledgers'.
'By 18 to 24 they catch up with their non-pledging peers in sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy rates,' said Professor Peter Bearman of Columbia University.
So,
pledgers = 88% x 60% = 52% unprotected
nonpledgers = 99% x 40% = 39.6% unprotected

My math isn't great, but that doesn't look very good results to me...

El Sitherino
01-18-2005, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by toms
So,
pledgers = 88% x 60% = 52% unprotected
nonpledgers = 99% x 40% = 39.6% unprotected

My math isn't great, but that doesn't look very good results to me... Exactly why I'm against teaching abstinence only. Atleast teach safe sex hand in hand with abstinence. "Wait until you're married, but if you're going to have sex, be safe." ya know?

Monkey Mania
01-18-2005, 07:31 PM
>Religion<;) Just because you are able to doesn't mean you are ready.

Leper Messiah
01-19-2005, 01:35 AM
Religion in government IS TEH SUXX0RZ!!111

toms
01-19-2005, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
Exactly why I'm against teaching abstinence only. Atleast teach safe sex hand in hand with abstinence. "Wait until you're married, but if you're going to have sex, be safe." ya know?

yeah. then we'd have 88% x 40% = 35.2% unprotected... (i'll stop with the pointless maths now :D )

Personally i'm not much into the abstinence thing, but i have no problem with them teaching it IF they also accept that not everyone is gonna do it and teach sex education (as the real world understands it) as well.

Not teaching about contraception is irresponsible.

Putting kids OFF using contracepting is not only irresponsible, it is immoral and dangerous. (The main reason i think the catholic church is evil scum is its insistance on killing thousands of people a year in the third world by telling them condoms don't work).

Having teaching the benefits of contraception be illegal just goes to show that the US is run on religious fundamentalist grounds, not on a basis of science or reason.

(It isn't even illegal to talk about contraception (which would be bad enough. ) You can talk about the drawbacks of contraception, but not the benefits. Fair and balanced...