The shocking news is that 1 in 4 teenage girls has an STD, according to a just-released CDC study.

But the spin starts there.

You would never know by the biasedly biased Associated Press article below that the blame for the increase in STDs rests with comprehensive sex ed teaching, by which 75% of American teens are titilated, while only 25% receive abstinence ed.

And it's not just the National Abstinence Education Association and me spouting that percentage, it's also Guttmacher, in its typically backward way:

So here are excerpts from the AP article, defying intelligence to blame abstinence ed for the STD epidemic....

Some doctors said the numbers might be a reflection of both abstinence-only sex education and teens' own sense of invulnerabilty....

"This is pretty shocking," said Dr. Elizabeth Alderman, an adolescent medicine specialist at Montefiore Medical Center's Children's Hospital in New York.

"To talk about abstinence is not a bad thing," but teen girls - and boys too - need to be informed about how to protect themselves if they do have sex," Alderman said....

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the study shows that "the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price."...

Teens need to hear the dual message that STDs can be prevented by abstinence and condoms, said Dr. Ellen Kruger, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans....

Not only were no abstinence ed proponents quoted, I mean, come on, asking Cecile, who makes her living from pushing sex?

I'll help the AP. Here's a statement about the aforementioned study from Valerie Huber, executive director of NAEA:

Abstinence education is an holistic approach to providing youth the skills to make the best health decisions concerning sexuality. A number of credible studies prove that teaching a wide-range of character building, decision-making skills, while also offering students medically accurate information on STDs and contraception, delays the onset of sexual activity in teens, and reduces risky behavior in teens already having sex.

[HT: readers Kristen and Sandy]

There are probably other factors involved, like poverty, lack of parental involvement, and self-esteem issues.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=marines-in-berkeley

This is a hilarious video everyone shall enjoy.

PIP that WAS hilarious! I especially liked when the chick-a-dee said it was very important to protect free speech and the reporter said "Wouldn't it be great if there was a group that was sworn to protect that right?" Yep! Berkley really is a "bastion of liberal thought."

Glad you liked it Kristen! ;)

I thought it was ridiculous how offended they were about the Armed Services. They sit in our campus student center recruiting people all the time!

Heck let's send them over to Iraq to sort this whole mess out! I'm sure they'd have it fixed in no time.

Maybe they could share their pink boas as an act of good will.

Well, actually I have heard a lecture by one of the Pink members and she has traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan, but her ideas on how to solve those issues in my opinion were too radical. I realize the need for more political involvement and I appreciate that they are trying to do something new, but they are just WAY too radical for me.

Watch them all break out in cold sores the next day from all of that kissing ;)

Abstinence education is an holistic approach to providing youth the skills to make the best health decisions concerning sexuality.

........................................

The concept of abstinence is deniance of human sexuality. Or in the case of strange religionists, giving it 'up' for god.
Holism is the concept of a human being seen and treated as a whole human being without a god as an outside source requirement.
God sends you to hell. Do not pass go and do not collect your allowance.

pip, LOL! Just got a chance to watch it. Good stuff!

"Not only were no abstinence ed proponents quoted, I mean, come on, asking Cecile, who makes her living from pushing sex?"

Yea, the AP has always been left-wing, they practically work for PP. Many of them went to Columbia U in NYC, that explains it all.

"1 in 4 teenage girls has an STD'

wow.

Sally
Your post at 6:41pm is just bizarre.
Abstinence means waiting for that special person whom you are married to and therefore, whom you will give yourself to totally, knowing that this person is equally committed to you.

There are good reasons for doing this, for one it protects the woman who is the more vulnerable of the partners from getting STD's and other diseases and it also protects her from the emotional trauma of being used as an object for some man's gratification.

To give your body to man after man is just gross in my opinion. It's the twisted view of human sexuality. Sexuality is but one part of the human person but you'd never know it the way PP treats the subject.

PIP,

Watched the video, and didn't find it funny. It wasn't that I agreed with the people interviewed (the people against the Marine office being there), but just that it simply wasn't funny.

Maybe it's because I live in Berkeley.

To give your body to man after man is just gross in my opinion. It's the twisted view of human sexuality. Sexuality is but one part of the human person but you'd never know it the way PP treats the subject.

Posted by: Patricia at March 11, 2008 8:10 PM********** Patricia, I agree.

"To give your body to man after man is just gross in my opinion"

Or to woman after woman?

You would never know by the biasedly biased Associated Press article below that the blame for the increase in STDs rests with comprehensive sex ed teaching

There's simply no truth to that conclusion whatsoever.

Not only were no abstinence ed proponents quoted, I mean, come on, asking Cecile, who makes her living from pushing sex?

Nobody needs to push sex, Jill, just like nobody needs to push eating or breathing. Sex is a basic human need and people have sex whether they have access to protection or not. Cecile doesn't promote sex any more than the weather man promotes rain.

Sex is a basic human need that most responsible people exercise with self control.

Patricia --

Abstinence means waiting for that special person whom you are married to and therefore, whom you will give yourself to totally, knowing that this person is equally committed to you.

THIS is bizarre. I didn't have to be a virgin to give myself totally to my husband. He certainly wasn't a virgin, and that didn't stop him from giving himself totally to me. Now that we are married, we are completely committed to each other, and we only have sex with each other.

Staying a virgin is a waste of time, because what are the odds of finding another virgin willing to wait until marriage and good enough to marry? And how do you know he's not lying about being a virgin? How does he know you're not lying?

I think it's better to have at least one other sex partner before you settle down. That way, when you're married and monogamous, you're not so curious about what you're missing.

There are good reasons for doing this, for one it protects the woman who is the more vulnerable of the partners from getting STD's and other diseases

You can use condoms and protect yourself against STDs. You can even both get tested before you have sex, so you know you're both disease-free. That makes a lot more sense than just trusting a guy's word that he's a virgin.

and it also protects her from the emotional trauma of being used as an object for some man's gratification.

How does it do that? Sex isn't the only way to use someone for your own gratification, you know. And waiting until marriage to have sex doesn't stop a man from using her after the wedding; but it does make it a lot harder to get away.

To give your body to man after man is just gross in my opinion.

Then don't do it. Nobody says you have to. Just don't try to stop those of us who completely disagree with your own bizarre and twisted view of sex.

Sex is a basic human need that most responsible people exercise with self control.

99% of Americans have premarital sex.

Stephanie, ah well that's okay. Not everyone has the same sense of humor I do.
I'm beginning to warm up to Rob Riggle...

did anyone see the TCR about Spitzer? HI larious!

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=6e4d475e-f713-4521-af4b-5e18f099d7ba

reality, so you agree that it's acceptable for women to give their bodies over to men, and then turn their bodies over to the abortionist, should an "unwanted" pregnancy result? Now THAT'S TWISTED!

reality, most decent men don't want something that they can easily get.

I agree with every word Patricia said!!

reality, so you agree that it's acceptable for women to give their bodies over to men, and then turn their bodies over to the abortionist, should an "unwanted" pregnancy result?

If that's what they want to do, what business is it of mine?

reality, most decent men don't want something that they can easily get.

What does this even mean? 99% of Americans have premarital sex, so that means 99% of American husbands and wives were not virgins when they got married. Obviously most of them still wanted to get married to each other.

Wow, you told me off, didn't you REALITY (pls get a new moniker - it's so UN)!

"I think it's better to have at least one other sex partner before you settle down. That way, when you're married and monogamous, you're not so curious about what you're missing."

Why limit yourself to one? Or two? How do you know - the 15th man might be the charm!! What is at least one - just some random number you dreamed up??

"You can use condoms and protect yourself against STDs."

And we KNOW how accurate that statement is! Just talk the many women who've caught genital herpes and venereal warts from men using a condom. Or who've gotten pregnant - but I guess that doesn't happen either.

"How does it do that? Sex isn't the only way to use someone for your own gratification, you know."

Any woman with half a brain knows that sex means something very different to a man than it does to a woman. The purpose of sex is also very different for each. Men are not as integrated as are women and a man can have sex without have any real feelings towards the woman. For a woman who is much more integrated (by that I mean her emotions and actions generally are in sync with one another) sex means love.

It's no secret that with the advent of BC, sexual promiscuity has increased and so has divorce. As more couples have focused on sex before marriage, they marry while they are still infatuated with one another (the sex is soooooo good). But when the time for real loving comes, when the real person shows through and the real problems of life crop up - they can't deal with it. Suddenly, they're not compatible anymore.

Your view is twisted reality, since my way has worked to produce a stable society with strong families raising productive citizens.

Un Reality

"Now that we are married, we are completely committed to each other, and we only have sex with each other."

How do you KNOW this? If he's had multiple partners he's been practicing for serial monogamy all those years.

"That way, when you're married and monogamous, you're not so curious about what you're missing."

A person truly in love with their spouse couldn't even imagine thinking this statement! It's so bizarre, it's creepy!!
Are you sure you're not a poly person?

Actually Patricia it is estimated that about the same proportion of people did in the past that did (does?) it now. About 90% or so, I think.

Why limit yourself to one?

Nobody said anything about limiting yourself to just one. I'm not the sex police. It's up to you to decide how many people you want to have sex with.

Just talk the many women who've caught genital herpes and venereal warts from men using a condom.

Just talk to the many women who've caught genital herpes and venereal warts from their lying and/or cheating husbands. Obviously nothing -- not even abstinence until marriage -- guarantees you a lifetime of happiness and health. Luckily, most STDs are treatable.

Any woman with half a brain knows that sex means something very different to a man than it does to a woman.

Yes, half a brain is exactly what you would need to swallow that baloney.

Men are not as integrated as are women and a man can have sex without have any real feelings towards the woman. For a woman who is much more integrated (by that I mean her emotions and actions generally are in sync with one another) sex means love.

Nonsense. I've had incredible sex for love, and I've had mind-blowingly amazing sex with someone I didn't love at all. Men and women are far more alike than you think.

It's no secret that with the advent of BC, sexual promiscuity has increased and so has divorce.

Wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18600304/

Divorce rates have been declining for years and are now at the lowest level since 1970.

As more couples have focused on sex before marriage, they marry while they are still infatuated with one another (the sex is soooooo good). But when the time for real loving comes, when the real person shows through and the real problems of life crop up - they can't deal with it. Suddenly, they're not compatible anymore.

You've actually got it backwards. It's the abstinent-until-marriage couples who rush in to marriage with the first person who asks -- because they just can't wait to have sex! It's just not a smart way to enter in to what's supposed to be a lifetime commitment.

My husband and I are still going strong after years and years of marriage, because we took the time to get to know each other before we got married.

Your view is twisted reality, since my way has worked to produce a stable society with strong families raising productive citizens.

Your view is a complete fantasy. The vast majority of people have premarital sex, and that has always been true. The only difference is that today, it's OK to be honest about it.

There's nothing unstable about today's society, families are stronger than ever and Americans are among the most productive citizens in the world.

Jill,
Hey, Cool! That "swirly" thing in the picture will "move" when you scroll down past it? That's pretty neat!

How do you KNOW this? If he's had multiple partners he's been practicing for serial monogamy all those years.

I've had multiple partners, but I'm not cheating on him. We know we're not cheating on each other the same way any couple knows: I trust him and he trusts me.

A person truly in love with their spouse couldn't even imagine thinking this statement!

LOL, don't be silly; of course they can!

When I was with my first partner, I was often curious about what sex would be like with others. But now that I'm more experienced, I am not curious about others at all. What's so horrible about that?

"There's nothing unstable about today's society, families are stronger than ever and Americans are among the most productive citizens in the world."

Yeah, that's why so many kids are growing up in single parent families. After their fathers had sex with their mothers and then abandoned them.
That's reality!

"It's the abstinent-until-marriage couples who rush in to marriage with the first person who asks -- because they just can't wait to have sex!"

Yes, we were all just horney people who couldn't wait! You're too funny!! How would YOU know what people who are virgins when they marry, think?

I love how you make grand outrageous statements and then use the MSM to back up your arguments. Like they don't have an agenda!!

Divorce rates, dear, have only dropped recently and that's because more couples are co-habitating (ie NOT MARRYING as in being COMMITTED to one another). Co-habitating is not a stable environment to raise a family.

Divorce rates are lowest in time periods where one spouse (usually the woman) is dependent on the other.

"I've had multiple partners, but I'm not cheating on him. We know we're not cheating on each other the same way any couple knows: I trust him and he trusts me."

But you don't know for SURE -- just like you don't believe a man as to whether he's a virgin or not. Do you??? You can't have it both ways.

"A person truly in love with their spouse couldn't even imagine thinking this statement!

LOL, don't be silly; of course they can!

When I was with my first partner, I was often curious about what sex would be like with others. But now that I'm more experienced, I am not curious about others at all. What's so horrible about that?"

You made my point - you weren't in love with your partner if your mind was wandering around wondering what other guys were like in bed. He was just a body to you and you were using him for your own gratification - THAT's GROSS.

Yeah, that's why so many kids are growing up in single parent families. After their fathers had sex with their mothers and then abandoned them.

OR after their mothers found their fathers unsuitable, but still chose to carry the pregnancy to term. Most of these families are quite stable and healthy.

Yes, we were all just horney people who couldn't wait! You're too funny!! How would YOU know what people who are virgins when they marry, think?

I know because I've met them.

I love how you make grand outrageous statements and then use the MSM to back up your arguments. Like they don't have an agenda!!

Darlin', you make plenty of grand, outrageous statements yourself, and you definitely have an agenda.

Divorce rates, dear, have only dropped recently

Wrong. Go back and follow the link I gave you. Divorce rates have been dropping since 1981 -- that's 27 years.

and that's because more couples are co-habitating

It's good that more people are putting off marriage until they are really committed. It shows how seriously people take marriage. It makes it even more special.

But you don't know for SURE

Not even abstinence until marriage will give you psychic powers, dear.

You made my point - you weren't in love with your partner if your mind was wandering around wondering what other guys were like in bed.

Of course I was. How would you know? You weren't there.

He was just a body to you and you were using him for your own gratification

Not at all.

- THAT's GROSS.

It's OK, I forgive you.

P.S.

This statement really is fascinating:

You made my point - you weren't in love with your partner if your mind was wandering around wondering what other guys were like in bed. He was just a body to you and you were using him for your own gratification

According to you, women are emotional and sincere and we don't use men just for sex. You said that men were the ones who use women, but now you're accusing me of using a man.

And how could I be "using him," if men are not emotional and don't mind having sex just for the hell of it?

Clearly, you have much to learn about sex.

I know because I've met them.

All of them? Really? Wow, Reality, you sure get around.

That's funny, Elizabeth. *golf clap*

reality, you're asking for frustration is you want to have a rational discussion about sex around here. Except for yllas, she (he?) loves to talk about sex.

you're asking for frustration is you want to have a rational discussion about sex around here.

Pot? Kettle?

Nonsense. I've had incredible sex for love, and I've had mind-blowingly amazing sex with someone I didn't love at all. Men and women are far more alike than you think.

reality, Never mind. That explains what kind of person you are.

I've had multiple partners, but I'm not cheating on him. We know we're not cheating on each other the same way any couple knows: I trust him and he trusts me.

Okay. That's delusional.

reality, Never mind. That explains what kind of person you are.

Posted by: heather at March 12, 2008 6:26 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Does YOUR sexual behavior define what kind of person you are?

yes.

" reality, Never mind. That explains what kind of person you are.
Posted by: heather at March 12, 2008 6:26 AM"

Heather...that's uncalled for and mean. Grow up.

"I've had incredible sex for love, and I've had mind-blowingly amazing sex with someone I didn't love at all"

me too.

Rae, why are you under a new screen name?

@Heather: Who's Rae?

Okay. Never mind;]

Oh, goody! This topic again!

Take a look at STD and teen pregnancy rates in the United States. Then take a look at STD and teen pregnancy rates in places that ONLY do comprehensive sex ed (ie: sex ed that covers both abstinence and contraceptive options): France, Germany, the Netherland--Canada, for you nutters who think that Europe is a bad example because it has ((giggle)) an "underpopulation crisis" (yeah, so naturally the solution is to get all teens pregnant... or something). I know you'll find something ridiculous to "counter" it, but I think you'll know in the back of your heads that I'm right.

Every time I've used a contraceptive, it has been clear sailing. No babies. No STDs. As long as they're used correctly there should be no problems. Common sense, people.

As long as they're used correctly there should be no problems.

What about the people who don't care enough to use them correctly? Or at all? There ARE people like that. A lot more than you'd think.

right. what do we do with grown women who refuse to use bc?

"reality, Never mind. That explains what kind of person you are."

Good job, Heather. Not even trying to rationally discuss and resorting to personal attacks. Nice.

"Okay. That's delusional."

I don't see how that's delusional. To cheat on someone is to go out/have sex/whatever when you are already committed to someone else. At least, that's what it is in the real world.

I wonder what percentage of teenagers who have driven cars have ever been in an accident or gotten a ticket.

If the concern is really about risk, rather than a particular view of sexual morality, maybe we should teach abstinence from driving, too! Car accidents can be fatal, after all. Besides, nobody *needs* to drive. They could always walk, or take public transportation, or move closer to their school/workplace.

If the concern is really about risk, rather than a particular view of sexual morality, maybe we should teach abstinence from driving, too! Car accidents can be fatal, after all. Besides, nobody *needs* to drive. They could always walk, or take public transportation, or move closer to their school/workplace.

I think the driving age for teens should be raised if that's what you're implying. Studies have shown that the part of the brain that allows 16-year old's to make quick decisions that are often necessary when driving are less developed than they are even a year later at 17. There are other parts of the brain that aren't as developed when a teenager is 16 that are important for driving, but I will have to find the article to go into more detail.

If all you're saying that a person should neither drive nor have sex until they're old enough to understand and be safe about what they're doing, then I have no problem. :)

But so much of this seems to be framed as, "some teens get STDs, therefore we shouldn't teach about safer sex and nobody should have sex until they're married". And if that reasoning were applied to other potentially risky activities, like driving, nobody would buy it. Because hardly anybody has particular moral views about driving that they want to impose on other people (about polluting, yes, but not driving per se), but lots of people have particular moral views about sex that they want to impose on other people.

Ari-chan,

Are you sure you're not Rae-Rae? because Rae-Rae used to use the @ sign too?

I think sex ed in schools should be optional, because I think teenager's parents should be the REAL people talking to their kids about this stuff. Or I think parents and teens should go to a sex ed. class together, that way the parents know what is being taught to their kids and the parents can also share their opinions on the issue with their kids. Like I've said numerous times, the public school system can barely teach our kids how to read and write and WE as parents expect them to teach our kids about sex? I think parents need to start doing their job as parents.

"Are you sure you're not Rae-Rae? because Rae-Rae used to use the @ sign too?"

@Jasper: Pretty sure. ;)

I miss Rae. :( She hasn't been back since that whole mess with her conversion story. :(

What mess?

Like I've said numerous times, the public school system can barely teach our kids how to read and write and WE as parents expect them to teach our kids about sex? I think parents need to start doing their job as parents.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 12:52 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How well did your parents do?

What about the people who don't care enough to use them correctly? Or at all? There ARE people like that. A lot more than you'd think.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 10:37 AM

Quite possibly - but those folks wouldn't be the type or have the will power/lack of desire to be abstinent either, would they?

Many studies have shown teens to have delusions of immortality - "it won't happen to ME - as they drive 100 mph the day after a classmate was killed in an accident" Same goes for sex - teens are risk takers - and it is much worse if they have misinfo or no info that minimizes the risk.

As for parent/student sex ed - nice idea, but talk to any teacher and see how difficult it is to get the parents to the school - for anything - my guess is that the folks who already talk to their kids would be there, while the ones who don't, won't - back to square one.

I think sex ed in schools should be optional, because I think teenager's parents should be the REAL people talking to their kids about this stuff. Or I think parents and teens should go to a sex ed. class together, that way the parents know what is being taught to their kids and the parents can also share their opinions on the issue with their kids. Like I've said numerous times, the public school system can barely teach our kids how to read and write and WE as parents expect them to teach our kids about sex? I think parents need to start doing their job as parents.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 12:52 PM
..........................................................

Curriculum for everything taught in our school system is available for the scrutiny of any parents wishing to do so. I'd be very surprised if this was not the case in your district.

Sally,

Not in Lexington, Mass. 2nd graders must read "Heather has 2 Mommies".

@Jasper: And that's bad because...?

Awesome! I didn't have a baby until I was a legal adult...looks like success to meee!!

As for parent/student sex ed - nice idea, but talk to any teacher and see how difficult it is to get the parents to the school - for anything -my guess is that the folks who already talk to their kids would be there, while the ones who don't, won't - back to square one.

So, Phylosopher...you just throw your hands in the air and say "oh well the parents don't care so why even TRY to get them involved?" Why, if it's SO important for the teens of this country, do we not do EVERYTHING we can to get the parents involved? Because it's too much work for the parents? How unfortunate for the youth of America that their parents don't care enough about them that they let a bunch of strangers raise them. Shame on them AND us.

Awesome! I didn't have a baby until I was a legal adult...looks like success to meee!!

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 3:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If success is defined by unprotected sex with a gang-banger, catching an STD, and cranking out an illegitamate child you don't support, then yeah! You succeeded!
Better yet, why don't we teach better sex ed in schools so that doesn't happen to other young women.

Low blow Laura.

Uncalled for.

If success is defined by unprotected sex with a gang-banger, catching an STD, and cranking out an illegitamate child you don't support, then yeah! You succeeded!
Better yet, why don't we teach better sex ed in schools so that doesn't happen to other young women.

How do you know I had unprotected sex with him? You know condoms break? And who said he was a gang-banger? Or do you associate black men with gang-bangers?

Yes, because better sex ed. prevents condom breakage AND sex with black men, I mean gang-bangers.

Who says my child is illegitimate? OH, still following the old "bastard child" mantra I see. Careful, Laura, your age is showing. Guess you're more "old-fashioned" than you like to admit. :yawn:

I'm thankful we have a military that protects me right to say whatever I please, no matter how counter-productive it is.

Elizabeth, just curious, not trying to say anything and you don't have to answer but is your daughters father in her life? How so?

Is your daughters father in her life? How so?

Umm, no..and if he didn't see pictures of her on my myspace he wouldn't even know what she looked like.

Does that make her illegitimate?

Sally,

Not in Lexington, Mass. 2nd graders must read "Heather has 2 Mommies".

Posted by: jasper at March 12, 2008 3:17 PM
...................................

So it obviously isn't a secret is it Jasper. If the majority of the parents had a problem with the book, it would not be part of the curriculum right?

Laura, stop with the personal insults on Elizabeth.

Elizabeth,

You're right, no child is illegitimate, but a gift from God. I have no doubt you're a good mom.

Thanks Jasper.

The insults really get old...but I consider the source...and then I just ignore them.

Elizabeth,
You are a great Mommy!!! I love how you love your sweet girl!!! You are both blessed with each other.

And who said he was a gang-banger? Or do you associate black men with gang-bangers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

YOU used the expression "gangbanger" more than once. You used it when you mentioned that your parents were stressed because you only used to date "gangbangers," and another time when you were talking about a store that carried hard-core gang gear.
I'm a frikken cowgirl. The expression "gangbanger" really doesn't occur in my everyday vocabulary.

FF, you have a habit of calling women who have abortions "law abiding citizens." I know a few post aborts who were convicted felons.

You make it sound like really responsible people have abortions. That's not the case. Also, what about the local crack head who is having her 8th abortion? In and out of jail over these drug related warrants ya know. Sleeping with every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Oh Elizabeth I was insulting you know you love your child and take care of her.

reality, you're asking for frustration is you want to have a rational discussion about sex around here. Except for yllas, she (he?) loves to talk about sex.

I'll have a rational discussion about sex. My unwanted relocation back to Michigan has put any sex for Leah off until June. Sooo... if I can't do it I may as well discuss it.

*pops BC pill*

Who wants to start?

I know a few post aborts who were convicted felons

You seem to know a few of about every kind of person, Heather. How do you do it, you social butterfly, you?

*joins Leah in popping a BC pill*

*giggles*

Hey Leah. :) Now who wants to talk about good ol' fashioned non baby-makin' sex? :P

Ooh! Me! Me!

I hate Michigan. No sex in the city.

*sigh*

I'm on spring break. The man's three hours away. We're both in the same boat, I suppose. :)

YOU used the expression "gangbanger" more than once. You used it when you mentioned that your parents were stressed because you only used to date "gangbangers," and another time when you were talking about a store that carried hard-core gang gear.

Lol, no Laura...while I may have used the term "gangbanger" before..it was not in those references..my parents were stressed because I dated LOSERS..not gangbangers..but I suppose they could be declared as one in the same. And what kind of a store carries hard-core gang gear? What like guns and knives? NO..it was a store that had cheesy ghetto things like weaves and gold teeth and Big ol' chains with fake diamonds on them. Me and my girls used to go in there for a good laugh since we're all from the suburbs. But we went to college in Decatur, Illinois...which is pretty ghetto..so that store was like the place to go for some people there.

Haha. I'm going to New York City to make the time pass more quickly. I hear a wild rumor that they have jobs there. We don't have those things in Michigan!

Three months. Lord, how will I do it?

Before anyone yells at me, no it isn't just about sex, thanks.

Three months. Lord, how will I do it?

Lol 2 1/2 years...it really isn't that hard.

I would like to add exclusionary teaching of evolution as a contender to abstinence-only education. Many infer from it that there can be no personal God, and therefore no "one and only" prepared ahead of time worth keeping themselves for.(I apply this to girls in particular, because they hold "veto power" in sexual matters.) The conclusion that results from the presentation of mindless-process-only science to the exclusion of all that argues against it has a much greater impact than most realize. Therefore, before anything is foisted upon kids that affects basic beliefs that effect behavior, hopefully what is taught as the nature of reality will be truly weighed in light of all evidence. To me, this is not "too far out."

Many infer from it that there can be no personal God, and therefore no "one and only" prepared ahead of time worth keeping themselves for.(I apply this to girls in particular, because they hold "veto power" in sexual matters.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Huh?

If you were in my situation, Elizabeth, I don't think you'd find it so easy. :)

If you were in my situation, Elizabeth, I don't think you'd find it so easy.

MMMM, healing from my c-section scar cured me of my sexual frustration until I'm married. :)

I just thought about the first 2 weeks after my c-section. ouch ouch ouch. I get those "phantom pains" from that too.

Sometimes I get the "phantom" feelings of something moving around in my belly. It's crazy.

Ouch.

Yeah it was rough..but well worth it. :)

Glad to hear it!

Y'know, I am curious as to what the STD rates are in teen boys.

Because after all, it's socially "a-okay" for them to sleep around as much as they can...that's just a man being a man, spreadin' his wild oats...

*eyeroll*

Because after all, it's socially "a-okay" for them to sleep around as much as they can

ewwww...it so is NOT!

ewwww...it so is NOT!

Elizabeth, while I personally agree that it is not okay for boys to just sleep around, it is generally accepted in society.

But yeah. I so don't buy into the whole "sowing his wild oats" crap. And let's not even get into the double standards that face women. If she doesn't have sex then she's a prude, if she does then she's a slut. Is there no safe grounds?

Must go. Promised the boyfriend I'd study this morning. ((giggle)) He said I was an existentialist (a huge compliment, coming from him) and an incredible person. How could I refuse?

So, Phylosopher...you just throw your hands in the air and say "oh well the parents don't care so why even TRY to get them involved?" Why, if it's SO important for the teens of this country, do we not do EVERYTHING we can to get the parents involved? Because it's too much work for the parents? How unfortunate for the youth of America that their parents don't care enough about them that they let a bunch of strangers raise them. Shame on them AND us.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 4:01 PM

Yes, it is unfortunate, Elizabeth, but let's have a little reality check - and you were doing so good on the logic earlier. You seem to be conflating two things - increasing parental invovlement and sex ed for teens. But if you wait for the one to happen, you may never get to the other. And, we agree, it is important. So, society starts from where it is - sexually active teens who probably don't get "the talk" at home and parents who don't or won't parent. At least get the kids the info they need.

Society does start with younger kids and their parents, encouraging parental involvement very early on. Hopefully it becomes a habit. But you must realize, our entire society is geared to getitng children out of hte home ever and ever earlier - full day kindergarten anyone? Full day pre-school?

As for getting parents involved - what do you suggest - jail time? That would be productive.

As for why parents aren't involved - granted, some just don't care, some have addictions, and some have support system issues. And this is where you are taken to task, to see outside your own privileged life. It is a privilege to have the type of support system you have described - sibling and grandparents involved in the care of your child - there are many women and families who do not have trustworthy siblings or able grandparents or friends who they can leave young children with, or they may have to work those hours, or they can't pay for gas and the neighborhood is too dangerous to walk, etc.

Try to see other types of lives than your own.

If 25% of teen girls have STDs, and most of those have the HPV virus, and the HPV virus can cause cervical cancer, and there is an inoculation to prevent the HPV infection, why do you folks oppose those shots, unless your real belief is that women that have sex deserve to be punished?

If 25% of teen girls have STDs, and most of those have the HPV virus, and the HPV virus can cause cervical cancer, and there is an inoculation to prevent HPV infection, why do you folks oppose those shots, unless your real belief is that women that have sex deserve to be punished?

Posted by: jaybones at March 13, 2008 10:29 AM

Personally I do not think that girls should be REQUIRED to get HPV vaccines in order to enter the 6th grade in a public school.

Governor Bill Richardson made the correct decision when he led New Mexico in making the vaccine AVAILABLE to all girls entering 6th grade.

Unfortunately all the the good presidential candidates like Governor Bill Richardson are out of the race and we are stuck with only senators to choose from.

As for why parents aren't involved - granted, some just don't care, some have addictions, and some have support system issues. And this is where you are taken to task, to see outside your own privileged life. It is a privilege to have the type of support system you have described - sibling and grandparents involved in the care of your child - there are many women and families who do not have trustworthy siblings or able grandparents or friends who they can leave young children with, or they may have to work those hours, or they can't pay for gas and the neighborhood is too dangerous to walk, etc.

Try to see other types of lives than your own.

Posted by: phylosopher at March 13, 2008 10:06 AM

I have trouble reconciling these comments to an outlook that sees training young people to abstain as suspect.

I mean what is wrong with helping young people see how behavior and lack of concern for others leads to the dysfunction and danger you describe.

I know some commenters here may come off as too religious or conservative or judgemental etc. But in general, the idea is for people to express their love for their families and neighbors through personal responsilbility and giving to others.

If a person does come from a bad neighborhood or home, they can learn there is a better way to live and love than just going from one bad relationship to the next without caring for those they interact with.

If they don't learn self control and concern for others, do you really think they will do better for themselves, their families and communities?

A friend of mine didn't come from a privileged life.
Her husband was a civilian murdered in Bosnia. She came to the US at the age of 22, a widow with a 4 year old son and 50 year old mother to support. She also had a work ethic and personal dignity (a gift you give yourself). She had no relationships with men for 9 years until after she finally remarried. It wasn't money or privilege or a good neighborhood or social support. She did it herself as the sole income earner working at a fast food restaurant. It was the power of self control and devotion to others that empowered her.

As for getting parents involved - what do you suggest - jail time? That would be productive.

Where did I even imply this? I didnt...what I meant was having teachers talk to parents, and build the relationship that encourages parents to get involved. Often times, parents don't see it as a big deal so they leave it specifically up to the teachers.

As for why parents aren't involved - granted, some just don't care, some have addictions, and some have support system issues. And this is where you are taken to task, to see outside your own privileged life.

Blah blah blah, I do..does that mean I can't have ideas as to how to change the lives for the better of those who aren't "privileged?" At least I'm coming up with some ideas...you're just saying "Oh well, there's not much we can do about it."

It is a privilege to have the type of support system you have described - sibling and grandparents involved in the care of your child -

Yep. And I thank them every day for it.

there are many women and families who do not have trustworthy siblings or able grandparents or friends who they can leave young children with,

Maybe they should get some better friends then. Or are they just restricted to people who live in the projects? I'm sure in their whole daily life experience, they meet plenty of people who are trustworthy.

or they may have to work those hours, or they can't pay for gas and the neighborhood is too dangerous to walk, etc.

Try to see other types of lives than your own.

I do...the majority of parents I am talking about are the ones that just simply don't think it's a big deal..mostly because they believe the schools are doing it for them. I think it's important to get parents involved to show them that it IS important AND a big deal. That's the key to changing things, not just relying on one area to do it for us. Have you seen how kids pay SO much attention in school? Chances are half of them aren't even listening when they are taking sex ed. If the parents could reiterate and have communication with the teens, they would be getting it from all sides and thus, be absorbing MORE of the information.

If 25% of teen girls have STDs, and most of those have the HPV virus, and the HPV virus can cause cervical cancer, and there is an inoculation to prevent the HPV infection, why do you folks oppose those shots, unless your real belief is that women that have sex deserve to be punished?

Posted by: jaybones at March 13, 2008 10:29 AM

For the sake of clarity, the HPV vaccine is only effective against certain variants of the HPvirus, so HPV is still a threat to women's health even if they get the vaccine.

Also STI's mean that people have multiple partners. If two virgins decide to have sex, they can't infect each other. I know this is obvious of course, but I bring it up to point out the contrast along the spectrum of sexual activity. The reasons people are most at risk is when they have a lifestyle of multiple partners. They are also more emotionally and socially at risk.

Staying a virgin is a waste of time, because what are the odds of finding another virgin willing to wait until marriage and good enough to marry?

I think it's better to have at least one other sex partner before you settle down. That way, when you're married and monogamous, you're not so curious about what you're missing.

You can use condoms and protect yourself against STDs. You can even both get tested before you have sex, so you know you're both disease-free.

Posted by: reality at March 11, 2008 8:37 PM

I find these statements both insulting and inaccurate.

If someone wants to wait for sex until they marry, that is their business. Who are you to tell teens they are wasting their time waiting for marriage? That is precisely the disgusting attitude that parents don't want shoved down the throats of their young men and women while they are in sex ed classes.

The notion that you won't find a virgin good enough to marry is ridicuolous. Many of the men and women who are good enough to marry are virgins till they marry. Like minded people seek each other.

The real efficacy rate of condoms is only about 50%. So if your partner has an STI and you have sex regularly for a year, your chance of getting it is 50%.

I find your statement that people should just have sex to satisfy their curiosity so repulsive, it is hard to respond. Why should any woman take such bad advice? This is NOT feminism. In my feminist mind each woman makse her own choice and does not bow to what society tells her to do. Who are you to tell women they should have sex if they would rather wait? Who are you to judge what is better for them? Is that the attitude of everyone who promotes comprehensive sex ed? If it is, no wonder parents are appalled.

I an going to save and print your comments so I will not forget them. Next time I feel I should give you the benefit of the doubt, I will have your true sentiments to refer to. You who don't trust the judgement of those who prefer to wait for someone they marry.

What do you say to the unsure woman who takes your advice and satisfies he curiosity and experiments with sex only to find herself among the 25% for whom the condom didn't work and now she is pregnant? Huh, well? What comfort do you offer the teen who follows your "advice"? How totally irresponsible can you be?!

If you blame those who tell teens NOT to have sex, what then do you say for yourself when you RECOMMEND taking unnecessary risks?

I am just astounded in my disgust.

Whew... 1 in 4 is pretty darn high.