Sex ed proponents defy results of CDC report: Abstinence works

freak dancing.jpgBrent Bozell's June 7 column, "Nightmare on Prom Street," in Townhall.com, takes wimpy educators to task for letting teens bump and grind their way through prom dances.

Meanwhile, Janet Crouse reported in Townhall.com, June 6:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just released its 2007 report "Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance"....

The good news is that fewer teens engage in risky behavior. The bad news is that far too many of them still do!...

The important information is that during the period from 1991 to 2007, teen sexual activity dropped, teen pregnancies declined and abortions declined. All of these positive developments coincide with the increased prevalence and greater sophistication of abstinence programs. No wonder the comprehensive sex education establishment is looking for opportunities to debunk their effectiveness.

Predictably, the relatively stable lines from 2003-2007 in students who have ever had sexual intercourse and students who are sexually active, as well as the slight decline in condom use, though not statistically significant, is being used by the comprehensive sex education establishment to blame abstinence programs....

Instead of abandoning Title V (which is funded at far less -- $1 for abstinence programs to every $12 for comprehensive sex education), we need to expand our commitment to the effort and broaden the distribution of abstinence programs to more schools.

The bottom line is that since 1991 the number of female high school students that have ever had sexual intercourse has dropped, the number that are sexually active has dropped, the number with multiple sex partners has dropped, and fewer girls are having first sexual intercourse before age 13.

When comprehensive sex education was the only approach available to students, all the risky sex activity trends were moving in the wrong direction. Now they are improving or, at least, holding steady. But we must work to see that those trends continue to improve so that our teenagers will have a bright and hopeful future.

Who could possibly want to risk seeing sexual activity trends go back to where they were when comprehensive sex education had a monopoly? Who would want to cut off funding for abstinence programs before they have a chance to influence teens toward better decision making across the whole nation?

abstinence warts ii.jpg

The answer is, sadly, that those who are promoting the comprehensive sex education programs that have proven so ineffective over such a long period of time are those who are benefiting financially from the federal troughs.

The organization that probably benefits most from federally funded comprehensive sex education programs, Planned Parenthood, gets almost $340 million from the government every year (though their funds come from Title X, they are one of the most influential lobbying groups for a monopoly for comprehensive sex education) even though their profits have more than doubled since 2003 to a record $112 million "excess of revenue over expenses" last year.

The answer for getting the trend lines on sexual activity to resume their progress is for teens to learn that they -- with the skills, values and habits that they learn from abstinence programs -- can control their destiny. When they internalize solid values, learn self-control, develop hope for the future, and put into practice the habits that they want to establish, they will be able to achieve their goals and avoid getting side-tracked into too-early sexual activity that lures them off the path toward future success.

[HT: proofreader Angela]


Comments:

Funny how most people consider abstinence-only education a whopping failure, and that 14 states have shut down their abstinence-only programs and refused federal funds in response to that failure:

Abstinence Only Sex-Education: A Costly Failure

The United States has extremely high rates of teen pregnancy and infection from sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The rates of these maladies, in America, are higher than in England, France, and more than double what they are in Norway and Sweden. To address this challenge, the present administration in Washington has been providing the states with funds for “abstinence-only” sex education. States that accept these funds may not allow councilors to even talk about contraception and disease prevention, except through abstinence.

A recent increase in the already high rate of teen pregnancy and STD infections is showing that abstinence-only programs do not work. A study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that teens in abstinence-only programs are no more likely to abstain from sex, delay initiation of sex, or have fewer sexual partners than teens not in abstinence-only programs. In some cases, the study concludes that teen who go through the abstinence-only training are less likely to use contraception and protect themselves when they do become sexually active. To make matters worse, abstinence-only programs often censor out life-saving health information that sexually active teens should have. In some cases, these programs actually include inaccurate and occasionally blatantly false information.

So, a number of states (14 in all) have opted out of the federal funding, in order to initiate their own honest and medically-accurate sex education programs. These programs which encourage abstinence, but show teens how to prevent pregnancy and disease have been shown to be considerably more effective than abstinence-only education. These programs (there are fewer of them than there should be) have overwhelming popular support. A very high majority of Americans think that teens should have accurate and honest sex education and knowledge of effective birth control methods.

Abstinence-only programs will cost taxpayers around $200 million in 2008. It seems to me we should put that money into programs that work not ones that have been proven to be ineffective. We can all agree that teen under the age of 18 should not be engaging in sex. However, we know that many teens are becoming sexually active at an increasingly younger age. In my view, teens deserve honest and medically-accurate sex education and taxpayers deserve to have their money spent on effective programs.

Posted by: Laura at June 9, 2008 12:18 PM


The answer is obvious.

Sex education, or should we say, safe sex education fuels the mult-billion dollar a year abortion indusry.

Always follow the money.

No pregnancies, no abortions, no money for PP.

Laura, you sure you want to stnad before God someday and tell Him how He didn't know what He was tlaking about?

Posted by: HisMan at June 9, 2008 12:39 PM


We can all agree that teen under the age of 18 should not be engaging in sex. However, we know that many teens are becoming sexually active at an increasingly younger age. In my view, teens deserve honest and medically-accurate sex education and taxpayers deserve to have their money spent on effective programs.

Posted by: Laura at June 9, 2008 12:18 PM


No, teens deserve to be told NOT to engage in sex outside of marriage. They deserve to be told the realities of sex outside of marriage. They deserve to be told that PP, the abortion industry and the women's right movement will sell them the big lie - that sex is without consequences and is their right.
Teens deserve the truth.

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 12:44 PM


Laura, What is the source of your text?

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 1:01 PM


The problem I have with the abstinence-until-marriage discussion is that it doesn't speak to gay youth about what they should be doing. And if they don't get accurate information about STDs and so forth, they're more likely to spread chronic illnesses such as HIV.

I don't think abstinence should be taken OUT of sex ed, but I do think that there's no harm in teaching about contraceptives and STDs and ESPECIALLY encouraging people to go to the doctor and get tested for them. It's a matter of public health policy that our citizens should know and be able to talk to others about sexual health.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 1:12 PM


Edyt: Don't most Abstinence programs talk about STD's and other health concerns? The curriculum encompasses more than "Just Say No". I know I read about the latest Abstinence only programs recently, I don't remember where. I'll see if I can find it.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 1:19 PM


Edyt: Here is a good site which attempts to explain the differences between Abstinence Education and Comprehensive Sex-Ed:

http://www.parentsfortruth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=29

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 1:30 PM


From the website link above - "Parents For Truth"

Parents Agree: Abstinence education is the best health message for teens. A nationwide Zogby poll conducted in 2007 showed that parents prefer abstinence education 2 to 1 over comprehensive sex education. Among other findings from the poll:
9 out of 10 parents agree that being sexually abstinent is best for their child’s health and future.
8 in 10 parents support public schools promoting abstinence vs. encouraging contraceptive use.
2 out of 3 parents think the importance of the “wait to have sex” message ends up being lost when programs demonstrate and encourage the use of contraception.

Abstinence education works! Abstinence education has received WIDESPREAD federal funding for ONLY ABOUT 10 YEARS, YET, in that short time, numerous peer-reviewed studies have revealed that abstinence programs are effective in:
Delaying the onset of sexual behavior
Reversing risky behavior in teens who were previously sexually active
Reducing teen pregnancy rates
Decreasing the number of partners in sexually active teens

Current federal funding for abstinence education is nearly $170 million, but the results are a cost-savings to taxpayers! When teen birth rates are reduced, taxpayers save $6 for every $1 spent.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 1:36 PM


Janet,

Those facts are untrue:

Delaying the onset of sexual behavior

Actually, sexual behavior has remained the same in those who partake in abstinence-only and comprehensive sex ed.

Reversing risky behavior in teens who were previously sexually active

Studies have shown that those who have ab-only sex ed are actually less likely to use contraceptives, and have been more likely to get an STD than those with comprehensive sex ed.

Reducing teen pregnancy rates

Teen pregnancy rates have actually gone up.

Decreasing the number of partners in sexually active teens

I'm not sure about that one, but it may be true.

The problem is, abstinence-only programs are widely different. I've heard some programs do little more than shame teens and tell them they'll be worth nothing more than a chewed up piece of gum if they have sex. Some others, like the ones you mentioned, may educate on STDs and pregnancy. But many have been spreading misinformation as well, such as the effectiveness of condom use. They've also been reported to have promoted gender stereotypes (like men are the only ones who want sex) and using religion in their curriculum.

Here's one example of misinformation:

The WAIT Training curriculum lists "sweat" and "tears" as ways HIV can be transmitted. This is VERY wrong.

The ATM (Abstinence 'Til Marriage) curriculum in Ohio has a game which encourages victim-blaming in the case of rape, by presenting scenarios in which the woman is made less credible by the numbers of partners she has had.

Here and here are studies on abstinence-only education that discover that it is not any more preventative than comprehensive sex ed.

And again, my biggest problem is that they don't address gay youth. How can you wait until marriage when you're not allowed to get married?

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 1:59 PM


Did you guys read the column Jill linked to about the prom??

This guy calls a woman to task for stating that there is no evidence dancing leads to sex in teens, but then provides ZERO evidence to prove her wrong. He just says "Is she kidding?" OOOOOH How convincing!!

He then calls grinding "simulating anal sex".

Uhhh.... WHAT?!?! Anal sex? REALLY? No. Just no.

He wraps up the piece with HIS solution to the problem - beating up any boy who would dance with his daughter that way (because, you know... its always the guy's idea, girls are all innocence and gumdrops and are being danced with without their consent?... and beating up teenage boys is ALWAYS a good solution!)

What a dingbat.

Posted by: Amanda at June 9, 2008 2:15 PM


Janet - some of the things in that link that are listed as "facts" about comprehensive sex ed are simply not true.

Not only did I go through the Massachusetts Public Schools comprehensive sex ed program, but I taught the New York State program.

I'll go through them point by point:

Advocating showering together as a no-risk activity - well... technically is it a no-risk activity. But this is taken out of context. There is a list of activities given as ALTERNATIVES to intercourse...showering together and giving massages are just some of the things listed...to encourage young couples to find ways OTHER than intercourse to work out those raging hormones.

Promoting methods for sexual stimulation - again, its not PROMOTING it. Its EDUCATING. Claiming that teaching students about something is promoting it is patently false. Otherwise we'd have to ask if teaching students about war is promoting war. And after Bill Clinton, anyone who thinks kids as young as 12 aren't asking what a blow job is, is very naive. Kids have questions. Comprehensive sex ed provides actual answers. If you don't answer them, they'll look it up on google...and you can only imagine what they'll find.

Conducting role-plays on how to help a partner maintain an erection - sorry, thats a complete fabrication. Mass and NYS being two of the most liberal states in the country do not include that in ANY part of their curriculum. If you can link me to a state that DOES list that, I'll be respectfully refuted.


Describing how to eroticize condom use with a partner - Whats wrong with that? Its better if they think condoms are icky and just don't use one? A big part of that is ensuring that women feel comfortable around condoms and know how to put them on a guy... so they feel empowered. And if a guy says he won't put one on, she can point to the door and tell him where to stuff it...no pun intended.

Suggesting teens wear "shades" or disguises when shopping for condoms so parents and adults won't recognize them - I have never heard that in my entire life, and it sounds completely ridiculous. Again - if you could link me to an actual curriculum that mentions this, I'll gladly shut my trap. But rest assured, that is NOT part of the Mass or NYS curricula.

Posted by: Amanda at June 9, 2008 2:28 PM


I also wish Parents for Truth linked to that Zogby poll they cite, because it's at odds with other polls I've seen, and it would be nice to be able to look at the poll questions.

Posted by: Jen R at June 9, 2008 2:36 PM



Edyt,

I was just posting to you to tell that that thread was about to be dropped...but I had to check which thread it was and lo and behold you answered me. And of course I answered you back...so now I will post a notice to you after all.

I answered your question on the Obscene Profits thread...hehe

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/06/planned_parenth_39.html

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 2:37 PM


Amanda.
"He" then calls grinding "simulating anal sex".
Who is this "he" who said the above statement
May I conclude you have just committed the fallacy of ambiguity from just not being able to read and then write about what you read?
Is this "he" the author named Bozell? Yes or no?

Posted by: yllas at June 9, 2008 2:50 PM


Advocating showering together as a no-risk activity - well... technically it is a no-risk activity.

Umm, yeah, IF that's all you do is shower. But come on, let's be real here, how many teens do YOU know that are dating and shower together as an alternative to having sex? I can't imagine that as much of an alternative. lol.

Hehe, I'm sorry, that just made me chuckle.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 2:50 PM


Amanda,

That whole article on the bumping and grinding made me think of the movie, "Footloose" for some reason. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 2:52 PM


Haha, Elizabeth...

(points at myself)

my HS boyfriend was a right-off-the boat Italian, a little more old-school than most American boys. In 2.5 years of dating he never ONCE tried to talk me in to having sex...so we were a little more creative than most teenagers I guess.

But no, I know what you're saying. Just saying that JUST showering together IS a no-risk activity. I think any couple who have made the decision to not have sex would be able to enjoy that... no?

Posted by: Amanda at June 9, 2008 2:58 PM


"That whole article on the bumping and grinding made me think of the movie, "Footloose" for some reason. :)"

Haha that, and Dirty Dancing. No body puts baby in a corner!

On a funny side note, I've never seen more grinding at a prom than at the ALL BOYS CATHOLIC High School my boyfriend went to. Holy crap did those boys have some pent up hormones! Certainly a lot healthier getting your groove on at a prom than actually having sex.

Posted by: Amanda at June 9, 2008 3:03 PM


Haha Amanda, I wrote a reply to your 2:58 post to me in a facebook message..because I don't want to get yelled at for sharing too much information here.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 3:03 PM


Yeah, I can't really talk about the bumping and grinding thing because I am SO guilty of it. Not that all the dancing I did on the dance floor was made up of JUST bumping and grinding, but I did my fair share. But I always had fun, and it never made me want to have sex. I just like to dance.

And the whole "dancing provocatively will make kids want to have sex more" thing has been going on for aaaaaaages now. I don't think our generation is really that original in that area.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 3:07 PM


And the whole "dancing provocatively will make kids want to have sex more" thing has been going on for aaaaaaages now. I don't think our generation is really that original in that area.

Haha, exactly. Remember the Puritans!

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 3:17 PM


Amanda and Elizabeth,

It might not make them want to have sex (then again it might), but don't you think it cheapens the whole sexual act. It makes me very uncomfortable. I just don't want to see it. Softball? Skateboarding? Sharing a pizza? These are all things that I enjoy watching 14 year olds do. But simulating sex on the dance floor of their high school? not so much. The phrase "Get a room" comes to mind.

The whole thing makes me think of animals and just really debasing the whole sexual act, which in my opinion should be a very private affair.

How would you feel if they were simulating rape? I mean, you've made it clear that it wouldn't lead to rape...so what's wrong with just pretending?

I realize I sound like a fuddy duddy, but I get turned off watching any public displays of sex. Even in movies, I usually go get popcorn or something. And it's not because I don't like sex. Good Lord, it's not that. There are those that would say...well, never mind what they would say...that would be private...as all sexual activity should be. I think.

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 3:22 PM


Elvis.

end of story.

=)

Posted by: Amanda at June 9, 2008 3:22 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpFrFY-D7cs

seriously, that's not dancing, that's rutting...

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 3:29 PM


I agree MK. :)

I think it's because I have children, that I am involved in their lives and that I will be helping them find activities that they can pour their energy into!! FOOTBALL!! PLAYING THE DRUMS!! ROLLER BLADING!! HOMEWORK!! VOLUNTEERING!!

They will know all there is to know about the risks of sex before marriage and they already know that waiting is the best option.

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 3:29 PM


Amanda,

Watch the video I posted and tell me you don't see a difference between that and Elvis.

I'm not (and I don't think Jill is either) talking about "suggestive" dancing. Waaaaaaaay past suggestive here.

Watch the video and give me your thoughts.

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 3:31 PM


MK,

I get what you're saying. I'm not saying that I like to watch it either. BUT, if the school officials don't want to see it, tell the kids to stop, or have them leave the dance. It's that simple. No stupid pledges, no beating up teenage boys, just follow the rules, or leave. All the dancing at my high school dances was somewhat tame. At clubs I went to when I was college, it was a little bit of a different story but those are adults. But the whole, "People dancing together makes them have sex more" is just a silly idea to me. Frankly, it's been said forEVER and I think it just has to do with the generation gap really. Kind of like the "When I was your age, I walked 5 miles to school in 10 feet of snow" stories you hear from your grandparents. Things will always progress and the generation previous will always think kids are worse today then they were when they were growing up. It's the circle of life. Cue "The Lion King" music.

There doesn't need to be any controversy. Either you stop dry-humping on the dance floor, or you can go home.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 3:31 PM


Elizabeth,

Oh, big difference between what goes on in an adult club and what went on at that Memphis School...and the problem is that adults just stood by and let it happen. Listen to the superintendent try to weasel out of it...

I'm not talking about "dancing"...the whole point of dance is to express oneself through the body...so no, I'm not saying dancing in itself will lead to sex. I had seen that video tho, and thought that that's what Jill was referring to.

If you hadn't seen the video you might not understand exactly what we're talking about here...

Dance on...I'll sing along...I ain't got no rhythm!

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 3:35 PM


LOL - MK, I'm guessing I shouldn't be watching it at my office. I'll have to check it out when I get home.

I don't totally disagree with you, btw, I just think the editorial was absurd... because

1. don't refute someone and call them ridiculous unless you can back yourself up with something other than "she must be kidding"

2. saying its simulating anal sex is just silly and not true at all. He was just going for shock value, and I think thats fairly obvious even to someone who agrees with him on his main point.

3. the fact that he needed to wrap up his article with a threat to beat up any boy who danced with his daughter that way. The solution to sexual experimentation in teenagers is ...violence? I doooooon't think so. I also take issue with the implication that its ALL the boys fault and girls are just innocent and helpless. Sooooo not true (as I have a feeling your video would implicate, having been at a few proms myself).

Posted by: Amanda at June 9, 2008 3:40 PM


Amanda.
Are there dances which imitate, or substitute for sexual actions? Swan lake being just one example of simulation brought to a high level of imitation/simulation. You know Amanda, the simulation/story of a wounded swan and wounded prince.
After dance being a simulation/imitation, one might want to discuss St. John's Night On Bald Mountain by Mussorgsky, and it's simulation of witches celebrating evil on their Sabbath.
Question. What instrument(s) in St. John's Night On Bald Mountain simulates flying?
But, let's throw in a ad hominem for ya Amanda, and write the only thing you know about musical simulation/imitation is from a cartoon named Fantasia or Bugs Bunny singing "kill the rabbit".
Hmm, I wonder if you know Fantasia and that mouse has any connection to witches celebrating evil?
As a side note about simulation/imitation, old timers might remember PBS running a series of films produced in the fifties named, "Victory At Sea". One film was dedicated to those kamakaze attacks which occured at Okinawa. The music in the background? St. John's Night On Bald Mountain. A great imitation/simulation of witches as aircraft.




Posted by: yllas at June 9, 2008 3:41 PM


I watched some of it...and no, I wouldn't classify THAT as dancing. Those are people just dry-humping in public to music basically. I think the people who are IN CHARGE of what goes on there should say, "Grow up, you're making yourself look nasty when you do that, so stop, or leave."

The school's in charge, they set the boundaries, and should follow through.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 3:47 PM


Jen R :2:36: It's tricky to find all the research links for Parents For Truth, but not impossible. The group is sponsored by the NAEA (there's a link to it somewhere at the bottom of a page) so either look under Research at the PFT site or go to NAEA under Media/Newroom, etc...

I think this is the one you were referring to:
Zogby International Poll:
Parental Support for Abstinence Education
http://www.abstinenceassociation.org/docs/naea_zogby_key_findings_050307.pdf

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 3:48 PM


There you go again Amanda. Your committing the fallacy of ambiguity by writing a false statement about a article you read.
Who is saying " it simulates anal sex"? the author, or another person who is named by profession? It is reason 2 on which you base a entire ad hominem reponse to a article about a dance at a prom. Reason 2 is a fallacious statment by you Amanda. You are not capable of reporting truthfully what a person wrote. You lack truth Amanda, by the fact of ambiguitous writing and reporting of a article written by Brent Bozell.

Posted by: yllas at June 9, 2008 3:57 PM


Edyt: 1:59:And again, my biggest problem is that they don't address gay youth. How can you wait until marriage when you're not allowed to get married?

Obviously the marriage issue doesn't apply to them. They need to figure out the best time to become sexually active for themselves. Maturity level, having the right committed partner are ideas that come to mind.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 4:03 PM


yllas:3:41: You are too funny (No offense Amanda). I have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 4:05 PM


Edyt:

About gay issues and sex ed - don't most high schools have Gay/Lesbian clubs now? Wouldn't that be a place where they could get the information they need?

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 4:09 PM


Janet...

check this out:
http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BA1C2688A-6888-4019-A4BE-1E8723AF0FA4%7D&DE=

I have a sneaking suspicion that any poll on this issue will have a HUGE discrepancy from state to state (hate to bring up the red state/blue state thing... but yeah). MA has overwhelming support for comprehensive sex ed... probably even higher than MN. I'd like to see the demographic breakdown from that Zogby poll...because as Jen R said, the vast majority of similar polls show the opposite to be true.

Posted by: Amanda at June 9, 2008 4:10 PM


Posted by: Amanda at June 9, 2008 2:15 PM

I have to disagree with you on that one. Dancing for my hubby and I definitely increases the chance of him getting "lucky." And I'm talking about the tango, not the soft porn (or not so soft) these kids are doing.

Tell me these kids are out there rubbing all the right "parts" and they just turn it off when the music is done.

I agree though that the issue is the parents/teachers that just let it happen. Well, now I know I'll be volunteering for all my kids’ dances.

Posted by: Kristen at June 9, 2008 4:20 PM


Elizabeth,

Dry humping...exactly! This is what I had in my mind's eye when I read Jill's post...hence my reaction.

I got no problem with Elvis. Well, I never got the whole worship thing with him, but I mean, I realize that swiveling your hips is not the same as what was on that video...

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 4:21 PM


Amanda,

After seeing that video maybe you'll take the words of that writer a little more in the vein they were meant.

I can tell you that if I saw some guy doing that to my daughter, I'd beat him with a broom. And THEN I'd turn on her and let her have it with the mop!

You're right that the girls in this video are obviously not being coerced or forced, and they are just as culpable...but Mr. Bozell is the father of a girl and might be a little biased. Dads are like that. What would your dad do if saw some guy treating you like so much trash? It's easier for a dad to think of his girl as the innocent victim. B

Being the mother of five boys myself, I'd probably blame her. Then I'd beat them both silly with a vacuum cleaner!

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 4:29 PM


Janet.
I'm making the point that Amanda is unable to write without ambiguity and that dance is a simulation/imitation of all types of physical actions of humans.
If a "he" wants to describe a dance as imitating anal sex, so be it. That's artistic opinion, and then throwing about ad hominems about a "he" giving a artistic opinion, is absurd. Amanda is accusing a "he" of being absurd!! Now that's irony considering "she" can't write a report about a article, "she" just read, without being a fallacious reporter of what "she" read. Hmm I think that might be a ambiguous sentence? Oh well, good enough for "her" good enough for "me".

Posted by: yllas at June 9, 2008 4:30 PM


Janet,
Most high schools do not have GLBT clubs...not where I am anyway. They started one near us in a high school grades 9-12, 600 per grade. There were 3 members.

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 4:30 PM


Amanda, BTW,
if you felt it was inappropriate to WATCH that video in your workplace filled with ADULTS, why the heck were these CHILDREN allowed to behave this way on school grounds?

(Not yelling...lazy)

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 4:30 PM


Kristen,

I agree though that the issue is the parents/teachers that just let it happen. Well, now I know I'll be volunteering for all my kids’ dances.

If that video is any indication, I'd say that were they allowed, they would have stripped and done the real deal right there on the gym floor...

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 4:32 PM


Obviously the marriage issue doesn't apply to them. They need to figure out the best time to become sexually active for themselves. Maturity level, having the right committed partner are ideas that come to mind.

Couldn't that be true for heterosexuals too?

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 4:36 PM


MK,

I like Kristen's idea of volunteering at all the kids' dances. That way, at least I know my kid won't be acting like a hooligan.

Seriously, if my kid acted that way at a school dance....oh man, I think I'd go to school with her and sit in class with her. JUST to embarass her..I mean she does it enough to herself at school dances....I might as well help her out.

(P.S. When my brother was getting in trouble at school, my mom did go to class and sit in the back of the room...needless to say, he shaped up REAL quick! No more suspensions for him.)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 9, 2008 4:36 PM


About gay issues and sex ed - don't most high schools have Gay/Lesbian clubs now? Wouldn't that be a place where they could get the information they need?

No, a lot of them don't, particularly in the Bible Belt and other red states. And I'm not aware that they have GLBT sex-ed courses. Either way, why would you allow GLBT students to have comprehensive sex-ed in a club setting, and not heterosexual students?

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 4:38 PM


Amanda:4:10:

I looked at the MN article you provided a link for -

A new survey shows nearly 89 percent of Minnesota parents support comprehensive sex education. Slightly less than 10 percent support abstinence-only education.

This percent who support abstinence-only education may be especially low because Abstinence-Only Education is much more limited than Abstinence Education. If the question was worded to ask if people approved of abstinence education the percentage would probably be higher, IMO. It's all in the wording of the questions.

The survey also found that almost every respondent supported instruction about sexual anatomy and the use of birth control, and more than 90 percent agreed with instruction on topics such as birth, sexually transmitted diseases, assertiveness skills and pregnancy. With the exception of abortion, most parents wanted the topics discussed before high school.

I don't think most people would object to a program such as the one described above. Most objections come from the way the educational materials are presented. Of course different religious groups have certain preferences on what they want included, and they usually create their own materials. It's important for parents to know that they can have their children opt-out of classes if they do not want them to take the sex-ed classes.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 4:44 PM


Janet said: Obviously the marriage issue doesn't apply to them. They need to figure out the best time to become sexually active for themselves. Maturity level, having the right committed partner are ideas that come to mind.

Edyt said:4:36: Couldn't that be true for heterosexuals too?

Yes. Sex and marriage aren't always mutually exclusive for heterosexuals, as you know. That doesn't mean I should to refrain from teaching abstinence. ( I don't know it that's what you are implying, but it would be like saying I shouldn't teach reading in school because some kids are blind.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Janet said: About gay issues and sex ed - don't most high schools have Gay/Lesbian clubs now? Wouldn't that be a place where they could get the information they need?

Edyt said:4:38: No, a lot of them don't, particularly in the Bible Belt and other red states. And I'm not aware that they have GLBT sex-ed courses. Either way, why would you allow GLBT students to have comprehensive sex-ed in a club setting, and not heterosexual students?

Most issues are the same for all students. The only reason I brought up the GLBT clubs was because I thought they existed everywhere. That's a place where issues specific to them can easily be discussed, I would think. As I said above, the fact that they can't marry doesn't seem to be a real issue in a discussion about sex-ed. Comprehensive or not.


Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 5:13 PM


Amanda: 4:10: I forgot to mention this earlier:
The survey from MN that you linked said the following:

The survey also found that almost every respondent supported instruction about sexual anatomy and the use of birth control, and more than 90 percent agreed with instruction on topics such as birth, sexually transmitted diseases, assertiveness skills and pregnancy. With the exception of abortion, most parents wanted the topics discussed before high school.

http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BA1C2688A-6888-4019-A4BE-1E8723AF0FA4%7D&DE=

Does it make sense to you (or anyone) that sex-education would be taught in school without a section on abortion? It's not nice to talk about, but neither is gonorrhea. Kids are probably less likely to get information on abortion at home than information about sex (which is a huge mistake on the part of parents if you ask me). Kids (just to preface - older ones, not the 3-4 year olds) wouldn't be so shocked at seeing fetus signs along the road if a parent had educated them about abortion. Just a thought.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 5:38 PM


I think that abortion should be talked about in schools! How about videos?? Show a real abortion. Show the truth. That it is not just a bunch of cells. Show the little hands, fingers, feet, legs, heads. Have speakers come talk about how they regret their abortions.
Who knows? Abortions could become RARE!!

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 6:40 PM


Let me clarify as well. High school students should know what an abortion is and what happens to the baby. Come to think of it, so should women that are having one.

Posted by: Carla at June 9, 2008 6:42 PM


Carla, 6:42: Amen!

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 6:51 PM


As an abstinence educator for years, I can address what is taught by a good abstinence program. 1. Teens are encouraged to set positive goals for their future and to value their body, emotions, mind and their goals for the future 2. Abstinence ALWAYS works because it is the only 100% certain way to avoid the physical, emotional, mental and social consequences of sexual activity (which includes intercourse, oral,sex, anal sex, etc.) outside of a life-long committed relationship (i.e. Marriage). 2.Abtinence ed. gives medically factual information with documentation from the CDC, the NIH, only reliable scientific research and statistics are reported and quoted from these sources about STDs and condom failure. While the NIH June 2000 found "IF used 100% of the time condoms reduce the relative risk of HIV infection approximately 85% for that year" I have personally heard a AIDS counselor state that "condoms are 99% effective" talk about who is misinforming our kids and adults by giving them a false sense of security. 3. Students who ask about homosexual sex are given the fact that ALL sexual activity outside of a mutual lifelong commitment and being faithful to that one person for a lifetime puts them at risk of contracting STDs. (It is a medical fact as stated in the new WHO statement in the article Jill reported above that MSM is very risky if you don't agree go to the FDC and see who can and cannot donate blood and why). 4.ALL students who are sexually active are encouraged to get tested, get treated and start over by commiting to abstinence from now on. 5. We give them the practical strategies for remaining or starting to be abstinent. Stop believing everything Planned Parenthood tells you about abstinence education, follow the money. Who makes money off of our teens PP or abstinence education? We aren't selling them anything (pills, patches, abortions, etc.)except their future with a healthy body, healthy mind, healthy emotions and a future whether they marry or not with NO baggage.Look up www.medinstitute.org and www.stdepidemic.com.

Posted by: Anon at June 9, 2008 7:38 PM


Hey interesting post Anon. I think encouraging teens to stay chaste is great. It shows them that WE respect them and we know they have to goods to live responsibly.

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 8:25 PM


my comment above should read: ...we know they have the goods to live responsibly.
(I'm a bit distracted - we have more tornado and severe lightning and thunderstorm warnings...)

Posted by: Patricia at June 9, 2008 8:27 PM


Anon,

There is a new rule here that you have to pick a moniker in order to post.

Your post was important tho, because you are an educator and can speak from a place that none of us are qualified to speak from. But please, if you're going to post more (and I hope that you do) pick a name, any name. It helps us to avoid confusion.

Normally, we just delete "anonymous" posts.

Thanks,
MK

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 9:17 PM


I am the one who posted at 7:38pm. Sorry I did not know the new rule, I will pick the moniker Educator from now on to post. Thanks.

Posted by: Educator at June 9, 2008 10:56 PM


Well, Educator, if it's follow the money, then who's on the receiving end of all that government money thrown at abstinence education? Seems to me that it's mostly religious right groups that write/publish/distribute those programs.

Posted by: phylosopher at June 9, 2008 11:34 PM


Does it make sense to you (or anyone) that sex-education would be taught in school without a section on abortion? It's not nice to talk about, but neither is gonorrhea. Kids are probably less likely to get information on abortion at home than information about sex (which is a huge mistake on the part of parents if you ask me). Kids (just to preface - older ones, not the 3-4 year olds) wouldn't be so shocked at seeing fetus signs along the road if a parent had educated them about abortion. Just a thought.

Posted by: Janet at June 9, 2008 5:38 PM
............................................

I agree. But must insist upon a section addressing the risks of gestation. Including absolutely everything that can happen to the woman as well as every possible outcome of a pregnancy. That should be a great deal more of a deterant to pregnancy than showing an embryo and pictures of what it might become.
Reality is very effective.

Posted by: Sally at June 10, 2008 2:00 AM


Sally,
I used to read What to Expect When You are Expecting when I was pregnant. It drove me crazy with all of its scenarios....preeclampsia...see miscarriage...see cord wraps around babies neck...see hyperemesis gravidarum(however you spell it)....I got so freaked out and fearful I threw the book away. Granted those can and do happen but it's such a good thing that a caring, compassionate doctor can HELP you through pregnancy isn't it?? Any birthing class can answer a pregnant woman's questions. What a relief those ultrasounds can be, huh?

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 6:24 AM


Carla, you wrote: "I think that abortion should be talked about in schools! How about videos?? Show a real abortion. Show the truth. That it is not just a bunch of cells. Show the little hands, fingers, feet, legs, heads. "

I agree with you (!). The students should see the truth. But then you wrote: "Have speakers come talk about how they regret their abortions."

I wouldn't disagree with this either, but for balance, you'd also have to have speakers come and talk about how glad they are that they had their abortions. And there are a lot more of them than there are women who regret their abortions. (See for instance SCIENCE, Vol 248, Issue 4951, 41-44 Copyright © 1990 by American Association for the Advancement of Science "Psychological responses after abortion" by NE Adler, HP David, BN Major, SH Roth, NF Russo, and GE Wyatt). To acheive balance reflective of the population, you'd have to have several non-regretting speakers for every one regretting speaker. You'd also have to tell the students how rare bad psychological outcomes after abortion are.

You'd also need to have speakers come and talk about surviving illegal abortions.

Posted by: SoMG at June 10, 2008 7:46 AM


I'm sorry Somg but having women come speak to high school students about how they don't regret their abortions would hardly help us in the pursuit of RARE abortions. You will have a lot easier time of finding women who want to spare others the pain they have felt after their abortions. I don't know any who have had them and are happy to speak up about it. Do you?

Balance Schmalance...

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 8:12 AM


There are quite a few that have survived legal abortions and speak. Gianna Jessen comes to mind.

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 8:14 AM


Educator,

Thanks and no problem. We found we had 5 or 6 anonymous' posting at once and we couldn't keep track of who was prochoice, prolife...and we'd respond incorrectly, sometimes offending them...

Posted by: mk at June 10, 2008 8:44 AM


Carla, 8:12, 8:14,

Posted by: Bethany at June 10, 2008 9:34 AM


Carla, you wrote: "I don't know any who have had them [abortions] and are happy to speak up about it. Do you?"

Yes, many.

Posted by: SoMG at June 10, 2008 10:08 AM


They speak at high schools and middle schools then?

I know they are out there. While holding my I Regret My Abortion sign one or two run up and yell "I don't regret mine!!" Very well then. Make your own sign and stand over there, babe.

I often wonder why there is no After Abortion Care. Follow up with the women and seeing just how they are "getting on with life." 1, 3, 5 years later and just how are they doing?
Are your customers happy SoMG? Do they send you cards and flowers and can't stop thanking you?? Betcha never see some of them again.

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 10:23 AM


Balance Schmalance...

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 8:12 AM

Gotta love it! ; )

Posted by: Janet at June 10, 2008 10:45 AM


SOMG: I wouldn't disagree with this either, but for balance, you'd also have to have speakers come and talk about how glad they are that they had their abortions. And there are a lot more of them than there are women who regret their abortions. (See for instance SCIENCE, Vol 248, Issue 4951, 41-44 Copyright © 1990 by American Association for the Advancement of Science "Psychological responses after abortion" by NE Adler, HP David, BN Major, SH Roth, NF Russo, and GE Wyatt). To acheive balance reflective of the population, you'd have to have several non-regretting speakers for every one regretting speaker. You'd also have to tell the students how rare bad psychological outcomes after abortion are.

Should we have lung cancer sufferers come say how smoking all their life has been worth it even though they are dying? Those kind of people do exist. - Just to balance the black lung posters from the American Cancer Society that hang in classrooms?

I wonder if the authors of that 18 year old study would still make the same conclusions today?

Posted by: Janet at June 10, 2008 11:05 AM


Sally: 2:00 AM: I agree. But must insist upon a section addressing the risks of gestation. Including absolutely everything that can happen to the woman as well as every possible outcome of a pregnancy. That should be a great deal more of a deterant to pregnancy than showing an embryo and pictures of what it might become. Reality is very effective.

If there's time to fit that in too, all the better! Knowledge is power.

Posted by: Janet at June 10, 2008 11:09 AM


As an abstinence educator for years, I can address what is taught by a good abstinence program. 1. Teens are encouraged to set positive goals for their future and to value their body, emotions, mind and their goals for the future 2. Abstinence ALWAYS works because it is the only 100% certain way to avoid the physical, emotional, mental and social consequences of sexual activity (which includes intercourse, oral,sex, anal sex, etc.) outside of a life-long committed relationship (i.e. Marriage). 2.Abtinence ed. gives medically factual information with documentation from the CDC, the NIH, only reliable scientific research and statistics are reported and quoted from these sources about STDs and condom failure. While the NIH June 2000 found "IF used 100% of the time condoms reduce the relative risk of HIV infection approximately 85% for that year" I have personally heard a AIDS counselor state that "condoms are 99% effective" talk about who is misinforming our kids and adults by giving them a false sense of security. 3. Students who ask about homosexual sex are given the fact that ALL sexual activity outside of a mutual lifelong commitment and being faithful to that one person for a lifetime puts them at risk of contracting STDs. (It is a medical fact as stated in the new WHO statement in the article Jill reported above that MSM is very risky if you don't agree go to the FDC and see who can and cannot donate blood and why). 4.ALL students who are sexually active are encouraged to get tested, get treated and start over by commiting to abstinence from now on. 5. We give them the practical strategies for remaining or starting to be abstinent. Stop believing everything Planned Parenthood tells you about abstinence education, follow the money. Who makes money off of our teens PP or abstinence education? We aren't selling them anything (pills, patches, abortions, etc.)except their future with a healthy body, healthy mind, healthy emotions and a future whether they marry or not with NO baggage. Look up www.medinstitute.org and www.stdepidemic.com.

Posted by: Anon at June 9, 2008 7:38 PM
I am the one who posted at 7:38pm. Sorry I did not know the new rule, I will pick the moniker Educator from now on to post. Thanks.

Posted by: Educator at June 9, 2008 10:56 PM

Excellent post! Thank you!


Posted by: Janet at June 10, 2008 11:16 AM


Welcome Educator!!! :)
I too appreciated your post!

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 11:22 AM


Carla, you wrote: "I don't know any who have had them [abortions] and are happy to speak up about it. Do you?"

Yes, many.

Posted by: SoMG at June 10, 2008 10:08 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, you could start with the 10,000 women who signed the MS. Magazine petition. You could throw in the women who carried the "I Don't Regret My Abortion" signs at the March for women's lives. You might also tack on those who post by the hundreds on the "I'm Not Sorry" site.

Posted by: Laura at June 10, 2008 12:52 PM


We already discussed this Laura. There were 5,000 that signed MS magazine. Since then, what have these women done? Like I asked SoMG do they go and speak at schools and churches? Do they do the opposite of Rachel's Vineyard then?
Is it really by the hundreds that write on I'm Not Sorry Laura? Really? By the by that is exactly what my 4 1/2 year old says when I tell him to apologize. Oh, and he stamps his foot for good measure.

I do not have a problem with women who do NOT regret their abortions. They seem to have a problem with me. No matter. The ones I am trying to reach are the women that do regret their abortions and are hiding in their shame and guilt. They are not alone. For some reason people would like them to think they are. Why is that?

If abortion is supposedly no big deal then why the hostility towards the ones who regret it?

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 1:16 PM


Educator:

Your class tells people to abstain from sex until marriage. Only 5% of Americans do so. What does your class offer the other 95%?

Posted by: Jen R at June 10, 2008 1:19 PM


Posted by: yllas (troll) at June 9, 2008 4:30 PM

Amanda and almost everybody else knows troll when they see one

Posted by: Stanto at June 10, 2008 1:27 PM


We already discussed this Laura. There were 5,000 that signed MS magazine. Since then, what have these women done? Like I asked SoMG do they go and speak at schools and churches? Do they do the opposite of Rachel's Vineyard then?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No.

They do what all emotionally sound and healthy people do after an elective medical procedure; they moved on with their lives.

Posted by: Laura at June 10, 2008 1:42 PM


Well, good then, Laura. Thanks for the jab. You prove my point.

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 1:54 PM


Well, good then, Laura. Thanks for the jab. You prove my point.

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 1:54 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You have to forgive yourself.

We've all made cringeworthy mistakes in our lives, and made choices that didn't pan out very well at all.

Stop beating yourself over the head.

Spend the time you invest in self-flaggelation on your real-live existing children.

Posted by: Laura at June 10, 2008 2:21 PM


I know they are out there. While holding my I Regret My Abortion sign one or two run up and yell "I don't regret mine!!" Very well then. Make your own sign and stand over there, babe.


Carla, I love you. I couldn't agree more with you..if they don't regret it, why the need to yell at you?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 10, 2008 2:25 PM


Laura,
Do I sound deranged to you? Mental? Do I come on here to whine about my horrid life?
Please listen to me. Please.
I forgive myself because God forgives me. I do not beat myself over the head. I tell my story to help others NOT to make them feel bad for the same choice I made.
Killing my child is hardly a "cringeworthy mistake" but one I have learned a lot from. Trying out for cheer leading in high school was a cringe worthy mistake!! :O

You got it Laura. I pour my heart and soul into my four cherubs and I thank the good Lord He blessed me with them. :)

I love you too, my sweet Elizabeth!!!

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 2:37 PM


Carla, I love you. I couldn't agree more with you..if they don't regret it, why the need to yell at you?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 10, 2008 2:25 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Because her response to her poorly-made decision is to outlaw abortion - a hard won right that most women are happy to have.

I once had a short fling at religion.
It didn't work out for me and was a real waste of time. If I tried to outlaw religion in America as result of my experience and tried to prohibit others from practicing worship, wouldn't you tell me to shut up, mind my own business and go home?

(That's just the way Americans are. Read the Constitution. The First Amendment assures your right to free speech, and the rest pretty much define when others must shut up, mind their own business and go home...)

Posted by: Laura at June 10, 2008 2:38 PM


I will not shut up when there are 4,000 babies killed a day. I don't know that abortion will be outlawed in my lifetime. I am very concerned about other women like me that think they are all alone in their regret.
I am sorry that your short fling with religion did not work out, Laura. Try, try again. :)

Yes, the woman who ran up to me, shoved her finger in my face and screamed "BULLSH**" at me was certainly exercising her right to free speech. Lovely.

Posted by: Carla at June 10, 2008 2:43 PM


If you want kids, then do it. If not, then don't do it. Either is okay. Don't worry so much about other people.

Posted by: Ulrika at June 10, 2008 3:19 PM


Laura, are you going to answer this post? I was looking for clarification. You just kepp ducking it. Here, I will post it a fourth time.
************

Many responsible women choose abortion rather than pitch a less-than-"desireable" child into that nightmare system...
Posted by: Laura at June 1, 2008 1:07 AM
Laura, that is so sad. They feel so helpless that they actually decide to kill their baby's before they are even born, "in order to protect them from society". These mother's need emotional counseling to help them understand that even "difficult" life is precious. We all go through difficult times in life and it "IS" acting irresponsibly to presume future difficultys as being a valid reason for killing her baby. Women often kill their newborns after birth for that same type of reasoning. Do you consider them to be responsible also?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 11, 2008 12:14 AM


Many responsible women choose abortion rather than pitch a less-than-"desireable" child into that nightmare system..

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."
- Margaret Sanger

Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 11:12 AM


I would like to respond about the importance of abstinence education although I doubt it will matter to the PP promoters. I see teens respond to the abstinence message because they are starved for a message of value, hope, self-respect, respect for others, committed love and self-control instead of one promoting selfish, promiscuous behavior which equates them with animals in heat.
True HEALTH education promotes risk elimination not risk reduction. We raise and do not lower the bar for ALL risky behavior. We teach DON'T smoke, drink, do drugs, eat unhealthy junk food, or have sex before marriage because it is a proven fact that these are the unhealthy choices causing lung cancer, obesity, cirrhosis, brain damage, STDs, teen pregancy etc. True HEALTH educators don't teach "since we know you can't control yourself and some of you are going to try these, WHEN you smoke, drink, do drugs, eat junk and have premarital sex you might try to reduce your risk by..." Sexual behavior is the ONLY area of health education where adults lower the bar to teens based on the assumption they know some teens are going to make bad choices.
Although abstinence education has only been around for over a decade and free love has been promoted since the 70's the impact of abstinence ed. is that the majority of teens have NOT had sex by the time they graduate H..S. and rates of teen sexual activity have been declining (CDC 1999, 2000). 66% of sexually active teens regret their decision. The same discipline self-control and strength of character that it takes to be abstinent until marriage will help them achieve academic, career and family goals and help them to be faithful to their future husband or wife. My last comment is adults who don't want to curb their own sexual behavior or are making money off of teens sexual behavior usually are the most angry about the abstinence message. I could say much more, over 25 STDs, skin to skin transmission, condoms don't protect the heart, etc. but those issues never phase the pro-aborts. They are all about the right to chose to kill our kids those born and unborn.

Posted by: Educator at June 11, 2008 8:59 PM


Yeah, but the big difference between sex and smoking is that no one should smoke and most people are going to have sex. Sex, on the other hand, has lots of health benefits to it.

And again, Educator, what do you say to gay teens who do not have the option of marriage?

The same discipline self-control and strength of character that it takes to be abstinent until marriage will help them achieve academic, career and family goals and help them to be faithful to their future husband or wife.

That's BS. I've been sexually active since high school and got my BA by the age of 20. People love to make it sound like people who have sex just aren't as successful, but that's not true. I've never had a problem accomplishing my goals. There are many obstacles people face, and personal relationships are just one of them. But that extends into marriage and beyond.

"Condoms don't protect the heart"? Uhh, my two worst breakups were with people I'd never had sex with. ANY time you commit yourself emotionally to an individual, even if it's just a crush and not reciprocated, you're open to having your heart broken. Sex or no sex.

Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 9:21 PM


Awesome post, Educator!!

Posted by: Carla at June 11, 2008 10:07 PM


Yeah, but the big difference between sex and smoking is that no one should smoke and most people are going to have sex.
Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 9:21 PM

Edyt, Why do you think you should stick your nose in my business and say I should not smoke? It's do-gooders like you that force your ways upon society.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 12, 2008 12:25 AM


Who are YOU to tell me I shouldn't smoke?

Posted by: ts at June 12, 2008 12:27 AM


Put out that dang cigarette!

Posted by: The Smoking Police at June 12, 2008 7:28 AM


Yeah, but the big difference between sex and smoking is that no one should smoke and most people are going to have sex. Sex, on the other hand, has lots of health benefits to it.

Wait, no one should smoke? Do you believe this should be enforced by law?

Posted by: Bethany at June 12, 2008 8:24 AM


And also, why should no one smoke? The case can be made that there are health benefits to smoking too, fyi.

Posted by: Bethany at June 12, 2008 8:27 AM


Facts About STD
* 65 million of people living in the US with STD
* 15 million of new STD cases each year
* 2/3 of all STD's accrues in people 25 yrs of age or younger
* 1 in 4 new STD's accrues in teenagers
* cervical cancer in women is linked to HPV
* doctors are required to report newly diagnosed cases of gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and hepatitis B to state health departments and the CDC
* 1 in 4 Americans have genital herpes, 80% of those with herpes are unaware they have it
* at least 1 in 4 Americans will contract an STD at some point in their lives
* 15% of all infertile American women are infertile because of tubal damage caused by untreated STD
* 12% of all infertile American men are infertile because of inflammation of the testicles and sterility caused by untreated STD
As early as 1996, WHO estimated that more than 1 million people were being infected daily. About 60% of these infections occur in young people


Posted by: Bethany at June 12, 2008 8:31 AM


I think I'll hang onto my humidor and smoke an occasional cigar anyway :

Posted by: truthseeker at June 12, 2008 9:13 AM


I smoked a couple cigarettes yesterday. Pretty much had to - it being "Wing Night" at a local tavern.

Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 9:55 AM


Wait, no one should smoke? Do you believe this should be enforced by law?

No, I don't think it should be enforced by law. I believe persons with private property should have the ability to ban or allow smoking on their property.

Posted by: Edyt at June 12, 2008 1:25 PM


Honestly, I don't care what a person chooses to put in their body, whether that's a cigarette or a penis. (or other options depending on sexuality)

Educator was trying to make it sound like sex was just as bad as smoking or eating junk food, when in reality it's great exercise and makes people happier, helps your skin... etc...

It's not comparable. If two people are healthy and STD-free, use a condom properly, they can have healthy and happy sex without getting sick. However, if two people have healthy lungs, they will still poison their lungs if they smoke, regardless of prior health.

Posted by: Edyt at June 12, 2008 1:29 PM


I have to laugh at the pro-abort post. As I said the people who don't want to curb their sexual behavior (AND I SHOULD HAVE ADDED THEIR PAST SEXUAL BEHAVIOR) would be angry. Health educators who want teens to avoid ALL risky behaviors will promote the safest and healthiest choices for teens. All the behaviors I listed are RISKY. Sex within the bondaries and context of a life-long committed relationship and being faithful to this person for life is documented in research to ELIMINATE not just reduce all risk of transmission of STDs. People do not die from NOT having sex but they can and do die from having multiple sexual partners (the biggest risk factor for contracting STDs). Medical fact: the younger a person starts having sex, the more sexual partners they are LIKELY to have, which increases their risk of acquiring STDs. Read Bethany's post at 8:31am very good stats. That is why the abstinence message with strategies for becoming or remaining abstinent is so important for teens. Teen girls are especially at risk of STDs because their reproductive organs, especially their cervical cells, are much more susceptible to STDs than adult women.

Do you actually believe that old wives tale about sex clearing up teenagers acne? Do you also believe the wives tale that teens will go crazy if you don't have sex? They are MYTHS. The emotional consequences of premarital sex are real
see the websites I listed on my previous post and a book by Glenn T. Stanton Why Marriage Matters with the documentation about married people being healthier, having more sex and better sex than single or cohabiting couples.

Posted by: Educator at June 13, 2008 12:17 AM


Educator, I'm not angry, I'm dismayed. Having sex releases endorphins, which boost the cellular activity of the epidermis and the dermis. Thus, healthier skin.

No, I don't believe having no sex will drive anyone crazy. I do think STDs are a problem, and I believe abstinence SHOULD be a part of sexual education.

But 95% of people have sex before marriage. Of those who abstain until at least 20, 4/5 will have premarital sex by the age of 44. By age 20, 75% have already had premarital sex.

So while preaching abstinence may be a nice ideal, it's not practical. Students need to know how to protect themselves from STDs. Telling them to limit their number of sexual partners is a good idea. While one may be ideal, let's not ignore that 1/3 of women and 2/3 of men have affairs within their marriages. Waiting until marriage may not prevent as many STDs as you think.

Posted by: Edyt at June 13, 2008 12:54 AM


Waiting until marriage may not prevent as many STDs as you think.


It worked for me.

Posted by: Bethany at June 13, 2008 6:56 AM


Educator was trying to make it sound like sex was just as bad as smoking or eating junk food, when in reality it's great exercise and makes people happier, helps your skin... etc...

Smoking reduces stress, which is a major cause of acne. Therefore, smoking can clear up acne.

Smoking makes people happy.

Smoking is like exercise because it helps people lose weight.

Therefore, smoking is beneficial enough to ignore the risks, just like premarital sex. @@

Posted by: Bethany at June 13, 2008 7:06 AM


Smoking does not reduce stress. It puts more stress on your body.

Smoking may make people happy. Great. That's the release of dopamine in the brain to handle the stress it has on your body.

Smoking does not help people lose weight. People do, however, smoke cigarettes rather than eating, which may lead to weight loss. But if you look at smokers, you will realize that it must not work that well, since plenty of smokers are overweight and out of shape.

Posted by: Edyt at June 13, 2008 12:26 PM


Smoking does not reduce stress. It puts more stress on your body.

Well, I know that. But smokers believe it reduces their stress (Just like teenagers believe that sex gets rid of their acne.). And it does...It relieves their short term stress, that is. (Just like teenaged illicit sex can make teens 'happy' short term.)

However, long term, the effects can be devastating, if they end up with an STD, just as long term, the effects of smoking can be devastating, if a person ends up with lung cancer.

Smoking may make people happy. Great. That's the release of dopamine in the brain to handle the stress it has on your body.

Okay, well. It makes people happy then.

Smoking does not help people lose weight. People do, however, smoke cigarettes rather than eating, which may lead to weight loss. But if you look at smokers, you will realize that it must not work that well, since plenty of smokers are overweight and out of shape.

If it helps curb the appetite, then smoking does help people lose weight, Edyt.

How do most weight loss pills work? By curbing the appetite.

Posted by: Bethany at June 13, 2008 3:50 PM


Also...

But if you look at smokers, you will realize that it must not work that well, since plenty of smokers are overweight and out of shape.

Being skinny and being in shape are not the same thing.

And plenty of people who take weight loss pills, or who diet and exercise, are overweight and out of shape. Doesn't mean those methods don't work.

Posted by: Bethany at June 13, 2008 3:54 PM


Hey, look what I found...

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

Posted by: Bethany at June 13, 2008 3:56 PM


By the way, before you get the idea that I'm all "gung ho" about smoking, I'm not...never have smoked, and never plan to- I hope you can see the point I am trying to make, which is that you can find evidence to support your ideas that sex clears up acne- sure. But people can also find evidence to support the idea that smoking can cure all your ills. This does not mean that it is objectively true information. Do you see where I am coming from now?

Posted by: Bethany at June 13, 2008 4:12 PM


Bethany,

Yes, I see where you're coming from. And I've smoked, so I know all those arguments. ;)

The big difference in my mind is that people CAN have healthy sex without ever causing harm to themselves or others. With smoking, you WILL cause harm to your body (and others).

I do believe in limiting the number of sexual partners (one is best, but I'm more realistic than that) and using protection. I don't think abstinence education is sufficient, especially once you factor in divorce and affair rates. Teaching teens to practice safe sex is not just good while they're young, it's an education that will last their whole life.

Posted by: Edyt at June 14, 2008 1:41 PM