While I don't endorse abstinence-only education, I would like to see how many kids actually pay attention and follow what their full (non-abstinence-only, if that's even a term) sex ed classes on a regular basis. I'm not looking for personal anecdotes, but I do know that as a teen, even fully cognizant, sometimes I said ********** it" and didn't use a condom.
What's that psychological term? Invincibility theory? It has to do with the frontal lobes not being developed all the way. Anyhoo, at that age, you simply don't think certain things could happen to you, and it's in the way the brain works. Maybe it would be best to see what kind of efforts are successful at this age, and then model sex ed, driver's ed, etc. after it.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Abstinence only sex ed leads to misinformation. Huh.
Abstinence only sex ed leads to misinformation. Huh.Follow
Smasharoo wrote:
Well that's true, but I'm good at it.
I can verify that this is, in fact, true.
Christ.
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
The reason many teens are on the bill has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the fact that periods can be yucky, miserable, and irregular for many women. Once every 28 days is bad enough, but without the pill my cycle is more like once every 22 days, for a full @#%^ing week. The pill keeps me NORMAL. Not getting pregnant is a side effect that didn't become relevant until I was 21 >_>;
Oh, if only I had a dollar for every teen I knew with "irregular" cycles. =)
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
I think the 2001 Surgeon General's Call To Action regarding sexual health is a good starting point for designing a comprehensive and effective nation-wide sexuality education curriculum, but what the hell does a surgeon general know anyway?
Much better that we have people like this in positions of authority:
Nexa
Much better that we have people like this in positions of authority:
Quote:
October 16, 2007, 7:01 pm
Contraception Foe Named to Contraception Post
Laura Meckler reports on Health and Human Services.
The Department of Health and Human Services appointed Susan Orr — who has spoken out against contraception — to a post responsible for U.S. contraception programs.
Orr, who will be acting deputy assistant secretary for population affairs, has been directing child welfare programs in another branch of HHS. Prior to joining the Bush administration, Orr was senior director for marriage and family at the Family Research Council, a conservative group that favors abstinence-only education and opposes federal money for contraception.
In 2001, she was quoted in the Washington Post favoring a Bush administration plan to drop a requirement that health insurance plans for federal employees cover a broad range of birth control.
“We’re quite pleased because fertility is not a disease,†she said at the time. “It’s not a medical necessity that you have it.â€
Reached by email, Orr referred questions to the Office of Public Affairs, which said she was simply supporting President Bush’s policy. “As she said then, the policy allows freedom of conscience and freedom of choice. Practically speaking, workers should be able to choose what kind of coverage matters to them,†said a statement from HHS spokesman Kevin Schweers.
“She wouldn’t have accepted the job of running the Office of Population Affairs if she couldn’t support the Administration’s positions. This Administration has worked to ensure grantees provide safe and effective products and services.â€
A coalition of family planning providers called attention to Orr’s appointment and denounced it. “We are appalled,†Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, said in a statement. “While her resume suggests a commitment to child welfare and children, her professional credentials fail to demonstrate a commitment to comprehensive family planning services for all men and women in need.â€
The administration’s last pick for that office drew similar fire. Eric Keroack was criticized by family planning advocates who objected to his earlier work as medical director of a Christian pregnancy counseling organization that opposed distribution of contraceptives. He resigned in March to deal with an allegation by the Massachusetts Medicaid program against his private practice.
In an email announcing the Orr appointment, Anand K. Parekh, the acting deputy assistant secretary for health, touted her work with HHS over the last several years.
“She has been responsible for working with State and local agencies to develop programs that focus on preventing the abuse of children in troubled families, protecting children from abuse, and finding permanent placements for those who cannot safely return to their homes,†he wrote.
The position does not require Senate confirmation, and HHS still may choose someone else to hold the permanent job as Orr is only being appointed in an acting capacity.
Contraception Foe Named to Contraception Post
Laura Meckler reports on Health and Human Services.
The Department of Health and Human Services appointed Susan Orr — who has spoken out against contraception — to a post responsible for U.S. contraception programs.
Orr, who will be acting deputy assistant secretary for population affairs, has been directing child welfare programs in another branch of HHS. Prior to joining the Bush administration, Orr was senior director for marriage and family at the Family Research Council, a conservative group that favors abstinence-only education and opposes federal money for contraception.
In 2001, she was quoted in the Washington Post favoring a Bush administration plan to drop a requirement that health insurance plans for federal employees cover a broad range of birth control.
“We’re quite pleased because fertility is not a disease,†she said at the time. “It’s not a medical necessity that you have it.â€
Reached by email, Orr referred questions to the Office of Public Affairs, which said she was simply supporting President Bush’s policy. “As she said then, the policy allows freedom of conscience and freedom of choice. Practically speaking, workers should be able to choose what kind of coverage matters to them,†said a statement from HHS spokesman Kevin Schweers.
“She wouldn’t have accepted the job of running the Office of Population Affairs if she couldn’t support the Administration’s positions. This Administration has worked to ensure grantees provide safe and effective products and services.â€
A coalition of family planning providers called attention to Orr’s appointment and denounced it. “We are appalled,†Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, said in a statement. “While her resume suggests a commitment to child welfare and children, her professional credentials fail to demonstrate a commitment to comprehensive family planning services for all men and women in need.â€
The administration’s last pick for that office drew similar fire. Eric Keroack was criticized by family planning advocates who objected to his earlier work as medical director of a Christian pregnancy counseling organization that opposed distribution of contraceptives. He resigned in March to deal with an allegation by the Massachusetts Medicaid program against his private practice.
In an email announcing the Orr appointment, Anand K. Parekh, the acting deputy assistant secretary for health, touted her work with HHS over the last several years.
“She has been responsible for working with State and local agencies to develop programs that focus on preventing the abuse of children in troubled families, protecting children from abuse, and finding permanent placements for those who cannot safely return to their homes,†he wrote.
The position does not require Senate confirmation, and HHS still may choose someone else to hold the permanent job as Orr is only being appointed in an acting capacity.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
I see no reason to deny kids all facts, additudes and opinions about sex, but the linked article is pretty much meaningless.
I'm surprised it was published.
If there is legislation being proposed based on the results of some study - great, but those results were not communicated in the 'news6' soundbite that was linked.
I suspect the same ancedotal stories such as a kid believeing bleach will prevent a pregnancy, could be drummed up even from a group of students that had a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum.
I'm surprised it was published.
If there is legislation being proposed based on the results of some study - great, but those results were not communicated in the 'news6' soundbite that was linked.
I suspect the same ancedotal stories such as a kid believeing bleach will prevent a pregnancy, could be drummed up even from a group of students that had a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
At some point, you can leave it as an implication. It's okay. We know you boink her, and we are SO happy for you.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry. Wouldn't want to burden the board Ms: "I don't trust a man who isn't good at cunnilingus". All I could think of for weeks was Radar from MASH eating roast beef in Tijuana.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
At some point, you can leave it as an implication. It's okay. We know you boink her, and we are SO happy for you.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry. Wouldn't want to burden the board Ms: "I don't trust a man who isn't good at cunnilingus". All I could think of for weeks was Radar from MASH eating roast beef in Tijuana.
BAM!
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Smasharoo wrote:
All I could think of for weeks was Radar from MASH
Come June, Margaret Houlihan!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
I'd have to see the actual surveys themselves, rather then reports about them. The language used in both of those links are pretty squirrelly IMO...
What Gbaji actually meant wrote:
I'd have to see the actual surveys so I can find loopholes in them wide enough to fit religious legislation in.
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
The reason many teens are on the bill has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the fact that periods can be yucky, miserable, and irregular for many women. Once every 28 days is bad enough, but without the pill my cycle is more like once every 22 days, for a full @#%^ing week. The pill keeps me NORMAL. Not getting pregnant is a side effect that didn't become relevant until I was 21 >_>;
Holy ****, I always though you were a guy.
No offense or anything, I just didn't know. But now I do.
And since my ignorance of some posters' gender isn't necessarily post-worthy, I'll just add that the only girlfriend I've had, from 16 onwards, that wasn't on the pill was English. We used to do the old "jump before you ***" technique which, whilst enjoyable, is a bit stupidly dangerous.
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
We used to do the old "jump before you ***" technique which, whilst enjoyable, is a bit stupidly dangerous.
Blowing your load on her face is a hell of a lot more fun than in her pussy.
Call it a symbolic importance if you will.
Hahah, I'm most definitely a girl. Well, bodily anyway. I tend to score 50/50 on those gendered mind tests, which may what confuses people online.
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Hahah, I'm most definitely a girl. Well, bodily anyway. I tend to score 50/50 on those gendered mind tests, which may what confuses people online.
If it's any consolation, I've always thought you were female, but I did think you were a lesbian.
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
The reason many teens are on the bill has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the fact that periods can be yucky, miserable, and irregular for many women. Once every 28 days is bad enough, but without the pill my cycle is more like once every 22 days, for a full @#%^ing week. The pill keeps me NORMAL. Not getting pregnant is a side effect that didn't become relevant until I was 21 >_>;
It's pretty well documented that long term use of the pill significantly increases your chance of breast cancer, not too mention it's suspect as a risk factor in heart disease and stroke. It's just one more foreign chemical the drug industry has decided we need in our bodies.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
It's pretty well documented that long term use of the pill significantly increases your chance of breast cancer
No.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
NaughtyWord wrote:
Blowing your load on her face is a hell of a lot more fun than in her pussy.
Well that's what I thought too, but it got old real fast. The stuff goes everywhere, its far from an exact science: in her hair, which she really didn't like, in her eyes, which she really didn't like, or just on the pillow, which wouldn't be so bad, except that after a few nights you're sleeping a damp, *****-covered pillow, which smells a bit the mouth of [insertpostersnamehere]'s mum.
Blowing it on the breasts/stomach is a bit less troublesome, but even that is not that amazing. You need to always watch your ***-o-meter, and time it well. If you're a bit drunk and stoned, you think you'll come quicker than you actually will, and then you find yourself ******* over her like a knob-head for 10 minutes.
But mostly, it's damn nice to just be able to come inside this warm and fuzzy place without having to think about it too much. It's nice, and it feels natural. And right. And even if you get bored, then you can always come on her face, just for the hell of it.
I guess its like everything else: when its forbidden, or frowned-upon, its a devilishly enjoyable guilty pleasure, but when it becomes compulsory all the fun is drained from it.
Smasharoo wrote:
It's pretty well documented that long term use of the pill significantly increases your chance of breast cancer
No.
Yes, there are studies that disagree with this, but eh it's cancer, it's tough to point fingers and there's always someone that doesn't want to take the blame.
The pill has been refined over the years as well, and reportedly is much safer now than it was in the 60's.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
"Most" relevant studies show a correlation between between birth control use and breat cancer risk.
Nope. "Some" studies do. The general consensus medically is that taking modern day birth control pills doesn't increase your risk of breast cancer, while demonstrably lowering your risk of ovarian cancer.
I'm not advocating taking the pill for reasons other than contraception. I don't think it's medically risk free. I think there are many valid reasons not to take it, cancer risk just isn't one of them.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Awesome Sex ed website I came across the other day:
http://www.teenwire.com/
Some of the games are hilarious.
Personal anecdote anyway, I've told this story a few times before. I once quizzed a group of middle school students who participated in a week-long abstinence only program. It did cover some basic information about diseases but there was no discussion of contraception/protection. The presentation was given by a program called Worth Waiting For. During the presentation I personally assured that all students were attentive (not goofing off, not paying attention).
The quiz results were atrocious. I don't recall exact figures off of the top of my head, but on simple T/F items such as:
HIV is curable.
Condoms always work.
Birth control protects against STDs.
50-70% of students were incorrect. They literally could have GUESSED better. The program utterly failed to effectively convey even the most crucial information a sex education program should offer. So do I doubt for a minute that it won't be effective at deterring pregnancies and STDs? Well, I guess I don't need to say it.
A comprehensive sex education is a child's right, and anyone who says otherwise can take my oral test.
http://www.teenwire.com/
Some of the games are hilarious.
Quote:
While I don't endorse abstinence-only education, I would like to see how many kids actually pay attention and follow what their full (non-abstinence-only, if that's even a term) sex ed classes on a regular basis.
Personal anecdote anyway, I've told this story a few times before. I once quizzed a group of middle school students who participated in a week-long abstinence only program. It did cover some basic information about diseases but there was no discussion of contraception/protection. The presentation was given by a program called Worth Waiting For. During the presentation I personally assured that all students were attentive (not goofing off, not paying attention).
The quiz results were atrocious. I don't recall exact figures off of the top of my head, but on simple T/F items such as:
HIV is curable.
Condoms always work.
Birth control protects against STDs.
50-70% of students were incorrect. They literally could have GUESSED better. The program utterly failed to effectively convey even the most crucial information a sex education program should offer. So do I doubt for a minute that it won't be effective at deterring pregnancies and STDs? Well, I guess I don't need to say it.
A comprehensive sex education is a child's right, and anyone who says otherwise can take my oral test.
Omegavegeta wrote:
Florida teachers should follow the examples of these ladies (A comprihensive guide of teachers who've slept with students!) and SHOW them how it's done.
The world will be a better place, for it.
The world will be a better place, for it.
No sex with students?? What ever happened to hands on training?
Atomicflea wrote:
While I don't endorse abstinence-only education, I would like to see how many kids actually pay attention and follow what their full (non-abstinence-only, if that's even a term) sex ed classes on a regular basis. I'm not looking for personal anecdotes, but I do know that as a teen, even fully cognizant, sometimes I said "@#%^ it" and didn't use a condom.
The Jan 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health wrote:
Our data suggest that declining adolescent pregnancy rates in the United States between 1995 and 2002 were primarily attributable to improved contraceptive use. The decline in pregnancy risk among 18- and 19-year-olds was entirely attributable to increased contraceptive use. Decreased sexual activity was responsible for about one quarter (23%) of the decline among 15- to 17-year-olds, and increased contraceptive use was responsible for the remainder (77%). Improved contraceptive use included increases in the use of many individual methods, increases in the use of multiple methods, and substantial declines in nonuse.
[...]
The limited evaluations of abstinence-only sex education programs provide no evidence that they are successful in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse.( n22) Although abstinence is theoretically highly effective in preventing unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in actual practice abstinence intentions often fail.( n14, n23) Abstinence programs may undermine the promotion of other prevention behaviors. For example, a longitudinal examination of the virginity pledge movement showed that pledgers did delay initiation of sexual intercourse; however, they were less likely to use contraception when they initiated sexual activity and were less likely to seek STI screenings.( n24)
[...]
The limited evaluations of abstinence-only sex education programs provide no evidence that they are successful in delaying initiation of sexual intercourse.( n22) Although abstinence is theoretically highly effective in preventing unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in actual practice abstinence intentions often fail.( n14, n23) Abstinence programs may undermine the promotion of other prevention behaviors. For example, a longitudinal examination of the virginity pledge movement showed that pledgers did delay initiation of sexual intercourse; however, they were less likely to use contraception when they initiated sexual activity and were less likely to seek STI screenings.( n24)
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Man, that list of women is staggering, and you can be sure that the list of men would be impossibly long.
It may be common sense, but it's far from rare. It happens all the time. I wonder how many times it's caught in comparison to not. Most of those teachers sounded pretty careless/bold.
It may be common sense, but it's far from rare. It happens all the time. I wonder how many times it's caught in comparison to not. Most of those teachers sounded pretty careless/bold.
Quote:
I'm not advocating taking the pill for reasons other than contraception. I don't think it's medically risk free. I think there are many valid reasons not to take it, cancer risk just isn't one of them.
Then you are obviously not a gynecologist. I was told I should go on the pill when I was 15 and missing school because my cramps were so bad. I would miss 2 days out of every month because I doubled over in pain. I was anemic with excessive blood loss. It was hell. The pill regulates your cycle and for most women with painful cramp syndrome (what I have) and other disorders, makes their period a lot more tolerable.
How bad was it? Imagine someone taking a knife to your nut sack, stabbing it, and twisting it, for hours on end.
My odds of dying in a car crash are greater than my chances of getting breast cancer because of the pill. And since I went on it, I haven't ever had to miss a day of work because of excessive pain or heavy flow.
When the pill was first introduced, the dosage was much greater and thus the risks of complications from the hormones was also a lot greater. These days the standard is 20-30 MG of -ester- blends. (Whereas when it was first introduced it could be 50 mg or higher of a single type.)
Wiki has a nice comprehensive history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill
Smasharoo wrote:
Oh, I'm terribly sorry. Wouldn't want to burden the board
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm not advocating taking the pill for reasons other than contraception. I don't think it's medically risk free. I think there are many valid reasons not to take it, cancer risk just isn't one of them.
Then you are obviously not a gynecologist.
No, but he is a cunning linguist!
In for Flea
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Recent Visitors: 215
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (215)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Abstinence only sex ed leads to misinformation. Huh.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC