By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this

Diane could’ve built a much better argument by pointing out that abstinence-only programs do not, in fact, work.

Really, what’s left to argue about? Shaunti’s claim is an out-and-out lie; abstinence-only education has been a failure, proven time and again. Therefore, it should be abandoned.

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 08:33 AM | Link to this

And really, it would only have taken a little digging to turn up the evidence.

“There is no conclusive evidence to date that these programs reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and there is some evidence that shows that they deter sexually active teens from using condoms and other contraceptives.” http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/12670res20041201.html

“American Academy of Pediatrics: …the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/

“Despite charges from abstinence-only advocates that teaching about contraception makes it more likely that teens will become sexually active, study after study has determined just the opposite.” http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/17_02/Abst172.shtml

Advocates For Youth study of programs in 11 states: “Evaluation of these 11 programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time.” http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

The Surgeon General’s report: “This evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity, either by hastening the onset of sexual intercourse, increasing the frequency of sexual intercourse, or increasing the number of sexual partners. In addition, some of these evaluated programs increased condom use or contraceptive use more generally for adolescents who were sexually active.” http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/call.htm

The lies and misinformation spread under the cloak of “abstinence education”:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinence-only-sex-education.html

http://irregulartimes.com/abstinenceed.html

http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139536

By Lyrazel

January 8, 2007 08:41 AM | Link to this

I feel the government should not waste money on abstinence programs or sex education. All children should be neutered at birth, if the neutering is irreversible the government can issue: Oops Sorry letters at the appropriate time. Then and only then will the continued waste of taxpayer money trying to educate these stupid nits end. The only children to be born will be to celebrities and upper income families (those qualifying for the tax cut now). In case some unlucky teen should give birth their child would be removed and sent to a faith-based orphanage. Another solution is to gather up all babies born to unwed underage girls and smuggle them into Canada where they will get free government health care and for once not be a burden on our great country! When they grow up they can provide their parents with low-cost prescription drugs thus reducing their parents Medicaid costs.

By baker-NG

January 8, 2007 08:42 AM | Link to this

http://baker.auto-carinsurance.org/index.html >usaa auto insurance quotes [url=http://baker.auto-carinsurance.org/index.html]usaa auto insurance quotes[/url] http://baker.auto-carinsurance.org/liability-auto-insurance.html >liability auto insurance [url=http://baker.auto-carinsurance.org/liability-auto-insurance.html]liability auto insurance[/url]

By lovelyliz

January 8, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

Government $$$ should only go to programs that work and when they don’t the $$$ should be pulled. Success must be the unltimate guide.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this

If I remember a certain news item awhile back, abstinence only programs(religious indoctrination in disguise), resulted in more teens engaging in oral and anal sex. So the girls can nicely say I am a virgin(but can give a great BJ instead).

I also think they tried that in Africa as well, resulting in a high rate of HIV. But they also recently were able to correlate the high incidents of malaria with the HIV rate, as well a correlation between being a circumcised male and getting HIV.(In Africa).

So is the poster Schoolgirl advertising some of her adult in nature videos? How did she know what the topic was?, thought she was a drone-bot(or whatever the term is for cyber-zombie).

By Jan Hudson

January 8, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

Teens who abstain are more likely to engage in ORAL SEX. So it seems the Abstaince training has been a miserable failure.Would you like your 14 year old daughter to engage in ORAL SEX so that the boys are sexually gratified and the girls run the risk of STDs? Come on, tell your kids the truth. All of it. Encourage your own family values as well. Then your girls will be able to make intelligent choices.

By kimberly

January 8, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

The abstinence-only cirriculum is a joke. My kid brought the little workbook home. I looked through it and said, “You’re sh-tting me, right?” Then I educated my kid. How sad for the children whose parents don’t believe in actual education.

By NetBanker

January 8, 2007 09:58 AM | Link to this

BC…thanks for the factual information. I noticed that Shaunti neglects to mention that while kids who pledge abstinence after abstinence-only education may delay having sex when the do cave in to their hormones they are LESS likely than their peers to use contraception. What I don’t understand about her position and what I haven’t seen explained is WHY teens shouldn’t have all the facts? The liberal position that Shaunti derides allows room for abstinence and even Diane says that maybe it should be encouraged. Yet we find that Shaunti tries to position the left as against good moral choices since they want to provide comprehensive information to teens that INCLUDES abstinence. And that makes sense, how?

To be honest I didn’t wait to get out of my teens to have sex with both genders, but wish that my first encounters had been more like the ones in my early twenties when I had sex with people who were older and more experienced. I’m certainly not advocating pedophilia or anything like that, but I learned a whole lot more about my body, how to give and receive pleasure, and how to communicate when I was with experienced partners than I did fumbling around with people my own age. Which leads me to another question that I’d like to ask everyone…why is it that if one has reached the age of consent to have sex (16 in GA, yes?), but gives that consent to someone over 18 that other person can be charged with a crime? What the laws are saying is that you’re old enough to decide to have sex, but not old enough to decide with whom. That just goes against common sense. If one can decide to do the deed then one should also be able to pick any partner one chooses.

I asked friends in the U.K. about this when age came up during a discussion about sex and they said that the ages of the people involved don’t matter so long as both have reached the age of consent.

By Archie

January 8, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Come on Shanti what world are you living in? Abstinence-only programs work for a small percentage of people. Small percentage. Diane points deal with facts not wishes. In the 1960’s people were having premarital sex and this is according to factual information published just a few weeks ago in national newspapers so I don’t know what Shanti is thinking about or why she would write her opinion the way she did. My answer to the topic question is yes provided that the government deals with facts. Abstinence is what I want for my child until adulthood but I want factual information to be provided as well. You can preach abstinence and facts just as one multi-tasks with everything else.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Don’t forget the GAO’s recent report…there’s some information in there as well.

www.gao.gov/new.items/d0787.pdf

And don’t forget the recent study that shows that an overwhelmingly large percentage of the population was getting busy before marriage, extending back to the ’40s.

You know, I’ll never forget the first time I heard the “It’s only ANAL sex, so I’m still a virgin” argument, from a girl I went to college with. I thought it was the largest pile of self-delusion I would ever encounter. Then I read Shaunti’s latest argument.

By Sten93227

January 8, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to much these days. Today was a loss. Nothing seems important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me these days.

By lozen

January 8, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

We must allow the government to provide our kids with programs that teach ‘em to be god-fearing and moral no matter what it might cost. We don’t want contraception taught in our schools; we want the schools to keep ‘em ignorant just like us! Teach ‘em bull about sex just like we teach ‘em bull about everything else. Teenagers will do IT if the school doesn’t teach them not to do IT. It is the government/school system’s responsibility to tell ‘em not to do IT. Then I don’t have to ever talk to them about IT. But if the school program tells ‘em not to, they won’t! Well, a few of ‘em won’t. Well maybe a few of “em won’t and I know my kids would never do that! We want our kids to have their heads up their bu—s just like us! That’s the way god wants it to be! You crazy libruls!

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Funny that Shaunti says we taught abstinence-only about drugs, not how to safely use drugs. That ‘just say no’ policy is about as effective as ‘just say no’ to sex.

By lozen

January 8, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

72John, ROTFLMAO. “I thought it was the largest pile of self-delusion I would ever encounter. Then I read Shaunti’s latest argument.” Of course you’re one of them damn libruls ain’t ya? You don’t even know sex is immoral, and dirty, and disgusting. We have to pretend teenagers will not have sex if we don’t teach them anything about sex. We must not teach them how to have safe sex because that’ll make them want to have sex. They’ll start thinking sex is not immoral and dirty and disgusting. We must never teach them the facts. Not giving them the facts (abstinence education) will make them NOT want to have sex. Loco!

By lozen

January 8, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Hey Kimberly. I’ve never seem any of the actual material they use but I can imagine what it must be like.

By Mara

January 8, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

This is one case where the odd liberal bias against a good-moral-choices program…

Once again the representative for the political right seems to be insisting that THEY are the definers and arbitors of what “good morals” consist of. What exactly makes “don’t have sex until you’re married” moral and “be a responsible participant if you have sex” to be immoral choice? The only IMMORAL sex is coerced sex.

But to Shaunti and her ilk, it seems that only straight sex with your spouse can be considered “moral”. No toys, no aids, no fun little oils, outfits, or movies. No protection, no contraception, no “un-Godly” positions.

I guess it’s that odd conservative bias against defining your own moral values instead of following an archaic and arbitrary set of rules…

and to echo EVERYONE else who’s posted so far…abstinence only education DOES NOT WORK. Despite Shaunti cherry picking data that seems to support her argument, an independant reading of the data in context will ultimately show how weak her assertion really is.

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

The abstinence-only crowd is doomed on at least three levels:

Get over it, folks. It’s not the school’s job to raise your kid, it’s yours. The reason we had to install sex-ed courses in the FIRST place was because of irresponsible parents like you who couldn’t be bothered to remember that “parent” is a verb as well as a noun.

By Randy Jones

January 8, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Wouldn’t the same argument for government funded programs therefore apply to their programs anitsmoking, drunk drinking, and unhealthy eating?

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

I read the book from Herbert Armstrong/PlainTruth/Ambassador College about Sex when I was about 16.

In it, the author argued that sexual activity among humans had to be God-inspired since Humans were the only species that engaged in face-to-face missionary position sex.

And me pointing out that lions also engage in missionary position sex and then asking if that was why they were called The King of Beasts did not go over well. LOL And further comments about lions must have a soul, attempting to follow the PlainTruth book’s logic, went over even less well. LMAO

But my dad pointed out to me(at about 16) over the dinner table(of all places) that women had penises too, and since I knew what one tasted like, raised my hands and with index finger/thumb, indicated/said Yeah, real little ones. He almost fell out of his chair. LOL

By Mara

January 8, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Randy Jones - drunk drinking? LOL!!

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Chilao,

Wow, your dinner conversations were a lot more interesting than dinner at my family!

By etc.

January 8, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

So here is my question BC. If weare only teaching abstinance, what would the criteria for success of that program be? Here is one indicator that tells me it must be working:

Each year, almost 750,000 teenage women aged 15–19 become pregnant. The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990. A growing body of research suggests that both increased abstinence and changes in contraceptive practice are responsible for recent declines in teenage pregnancy.1 • The teenage pregnancy rate among those who ever had intercourse declined 28% between 1990 and 2002. • The teenage birthrate in 2002 was 30% lower than the peak rate of 61.8 births per 1,000 women, reached in 1991. • Between 1988 and 2000, teenage pregnancy rates declined in every state and in the District of Columbia. • By 2002, the teenage abortion rate had dropped by 50% from its peak in 1988. • From 1986 to 2002, the proportion of teenage pregnancies ending in abortion declined more than one-quarter from 46% to 34% of pregnancies among 15–19-year-olds. • Among black women aged 15–19, the nationwide pregnancy rate fell by 40% between 1990 and 2002. • Among white teenagers, it declined by 34% during the same time period. • Among Hispanic teenagers, who may be of any race, the pregnancy rate increased slightly from 1991–1992, but by 2002 was 19% lower than the 1990 rate. In general, states with the largest numbers of teenagers also had the greatest number of teenage pregnancies. California reported the highest number of adolescent pregnancies (113,000),California teaches Contraceptives, not abstinance followed by Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois (with about 37,000–80,000 each). The smallest numbers of teenage pregnancies were in Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, all of which reported fewer than 2,000 pregnancies among women aged 15–19.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

LT - I actually think my dad was real proud of me for knowing that. My first ex was raised by her mother with the belief that the way to a man’s heart was to keep his stomach full and his bleep empty, and she did a good job of both. My Dad, I believe, had the belief that the way to keep his wife content was to keep her little penis well stimulated. (if later convos from my Mom are any indication of how he thought…LOL)

KNOWLEDGE is 1/2 the battle, right?

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I think those big/small numbers(113,000 to 2,000) are only meaningful when expressed as a percentage of the sexually active.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

What’s that quote about lies, damn lies and statistics? I googled “Columbia University teenagers pledging abstinence” and got a lot of hits. One was probably Shaunti’s source, called strong families or something, but there were a lot of web sites debunking the success of abstinence. So all of us can find some statistics supporting our view. I choose the pragmatic approach. Advise teenagers to not have sex until they are more mature, but if they do engage in sex make sure they know about contraception. I’d rather take my daughter to the gyn for birth control than to get an abortion.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

and expressed as percentages, it would probably look like CA is doing something right, since I wonder if there are even 2,000 teenagers in ALL of South Dakota. LOL Might mean 85 percent got pregnant in South Dakota, but only 3.5 percent of Californians.

Ima justa sayin’ (when dem kinda Statistics gets whipped out)

Aside from abstinence only programs, can the introduction of HIV in the early 1980s, be quantifiably measured as it affects these kinds of stats?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I BELIEVE the highest at-risk group nowadays, for HIV in the USA, are rural teens, epecially southerners, of all races, and urban black females.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Chilao, Yeah, I think when parents have the conversation with children about the difference between girls and boys they should include the c******, not just emphasize the vagina. Certainly using that knowledge is the way to a woman’s heart!

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Yes, the teen pregnancy rate is dropping. And that has what to do with abstinence-only education?

Answer: nothing. It was dropping before this silliness was instituted, and it’s still dropping in spite of it. Not because of it, as the other research and links have proven.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

What’s that quote about lies, damn lies and statistics

first thing my first Stats instructor put on the overhead, a quote from Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s either Prime Minister or Foreign-Affairs Officer(he may have had multiple positions over the years), there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics.

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

In a way it’s like “child abduction” scares and the current “online predators” hysteria. No matter how small or shrinking the problem really is, the hype and moral panic continue to grow.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

As usual, the religious conservatives miss the point. No one suggests that abstinence shouldn’t be a PART of sex ed for teenager. The problem arises when the curriculum is abstinence ONLY. Here’s a telling sentence from chu…er…ETC’s little cut-and-paste:

A growing body of research suggests that both increased abstinence and changes in contraceptive practice are responsible for recent declines in teenage pregnancy

Notice that is says BOTH abstinence and contraceptive practice is responsible for the decline. Not abstinence only.

By all means, teach kids that the most certain way to avoid complications is to abstain completely from sex. Just don’t add in the decidedly religious “until marriage” component, don’t teach the blatant scientific falshoods cited by the GAO study, and make sure that teens know that they can buy condoms in the auto-checkout line at Wal-mart without the embarassment factor.

By chuck

January 8, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Actually the rate increased to a peak in 1990. Abstinance had just begun to be implemented then.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

buy condoms in the auto-checkout line WalMart

and they do not even have to answer the drug-store clerk(clown-punk!) who will always ask “What size”?

By CTM (confuse them more)

January 8, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Let’s confuse them more like Diane implies. Tell them not to cheat, not to steal, not to lie, not to copy homework, be tardy, etc. But if you can’t handle the peer pressure there are goodies to help you cope. FORGET all the politics and data. Any fool with a child knows that you can’t say one thing to one child and say (allow) another thing with another child. It will create lawlessness. The main issue is TEACHING and it seems that Diane came from a very slack upbringing or she is simply inexperienced with raising kids.

By Jack

January 8, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Yes. The way to a woman’s heart is to be sure to take care of her “little monk wearing a robe”

On another note, prohibition worked as did the drug war. Bla, when your daughter grows up don’t let her go to a rainbow party.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 01:02 PM | Link to this

Except that lying, plagiarizing, stealing, cheating, etc. are inherently unethical and having sex isn’t. It’s something that shouldn’t happen without the emotional maturity needed to engage in such behavior responsibly, which is what sex education is supposed to provide.

Knowledge gives power, ignorance and fear lead only to greater ignorance and fear. That’s what “TEACHING” is about, not about propagating false information and religious fear.

By Jack

January 8, 2007 01:07 PM | Link to this

Hi John. Yes I snuck the laptop in again. Can’t get too involved today, busy, busy, busy.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

How come the censor zapped “cl!toris” and didn’t bleep penis?

By Monica

January 8, 2007 01:27 PM | Link to this

Hi to all! Chilao, glad you brought up the point that percentages of those state should be considered as well. I imagine that California has ten times as many teens as the other mentioned states combined!

Statistics can say anything you want them to say. Surveys are only as reliable as the people who complete them. I wonder how many teens claim to practice abstinence yet don’t?

As for government funding of abstinence-only programs, I don’t see why not, as long as they are not sponsored by a religious organization. Perhaps they are effective for some kids. HOWEVER, I think funding should also go to “comprehensive sex education.” Though I do believe that sex should be reserved for husband and wife, I also know that teens have sex! I would much rather them regret having sex with someone than regret having an abortion.

BC, great comments about the parents’ roles in this topic as well.

By Chilao

January 8, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

LilyToad - and here I thought you have self-editted it that way. Maybe it is because the p word is related to the all important thing reproduction, (like the v word), however we know the c word only related to pleasure, and we know how terrible and hedonistic THAT is. LOL

really have no idea, but it obviously ON the list. LOL

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

CTM: We also teach them not to drive without a license, but we also offer driver’s ed. I suppose that’s “confusing” too?

By chuck

January 8, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

Yeah BC. Great comments coming from someone who doesn’t HAVE ANY KIDS.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

Chilao, this reminds me of when filters would screen out any website with the word breast, but women complained about not being able to research breast cancer. Of course, none of the “porn” sites would use such a proper name as breast!

By chuck

January 8, 2007 02:00 PM | Link to this

BC, that last comment was just asinine. We don’t teach them driver’s ed until they HAVE a learner’s permit that ALLOWS them to drive WITH a licensed driver.

If the government is going to step into the fray and teach ANYTHING about sex (and I don’t think it should be doing it at all) then it ought to teach only that which is BEST for our society and way of life. That is CLEARLY abstinence. Under ideal circumstances how can ANYBODY argue differently?

It is virtually impossible to get pregnant “accidentally” if you are abstinent. It is virtually impossible to contract an STD if you are abstinent and don’t use IV drugs.

I don’t think the government ought to be usurping the role of parents in this regard but IF they insist on teaching anything it ought only to be the IDEAL.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 02:04 PM | Link to this

Well chuck you don’t have a uterus so you are now banned from any discussion or comment on abortion.

Stupid argument that only shows you have no real points to make.

By Archie

January 8, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this

Mara, I read your earlier post and there are some preachers that do say it’s wrong to have a certain kind of sex even with your spouse. But please understand as a church-going person myself I can say some of us do not pay any attention to the restrictive opinions of certain preachers. Good post.

The good book says all,all have sinned so that means chances are the sin in question may include sex outside of wedlock or sex in other than the missionary position in wedlock. It is a good thing that teen pregnancy rates have dropped but that maybe due in part to the number STD’s that the kids have been made aware of moreso than abstinence. In other words, many things explain why a person makes a decision. The main thing I have to say is if you are doing the right thing then you should not have to lie or withhold information.

By chuck

January 8, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

Yeah Joe L. Bite me.

By Suzi-Q

January 8, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this

Hello all, interesting topic. I have some personal knowledge I would like to share. I participated in one of the abstinence pledge programs in the 1990’s it was called “True love Waits”. First of all it was taught at our church not our school. And the posters who mentioned the rise in other ‘sex’ are exactly right! All of my friends who signed the pledge learned how to give great head. And when that didn’t make their boyfriends happy they had anal. I know of over 15 girls that thought this was totally acceptable and kept their ‘virginity’. They also didn’t use condoms because by the time they were ready to go all the way it was “true love” so why would you make him wear a condom? Like everyone else said, only providing one type of information on sex is not teaching it is preaching.

By Lyrazel

January 8, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

Well, sure who can argue that telling kids to wait to have sex until they are financially and mentally responsible to have children is a bad idea? Put all these facts on a different level: most teens (and this means children below age 18) get pregnant and diseased NOT by other teens but by adults.

etc., I am wondering WHY you left out statistics for GA. How about it?

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

Look at the big brain on chuck!

And the hits just keep on coming. Open your mouth again and prove the adage that being thought dumb is better than proving it.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 02:37 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - I don’t think you’ll find many, if anyone, who argues against teaching kids the value of abstinence. However don’t fall for the conservative straw man that abstinence ONLY is the sole way to teach abstinence. Reality teaches us that since the dawn of time people have sex and nearly always before marriage. To teach people the truth of sexual activity and how to prevent pregnancies and diseases is nothing but responsible.

To the people who talk about Just Say No (which has done away with drug use right?), even with that program you still taught what drugs did and their dangers. Same thing we are talking about with sexual activity.

By kimberly

January 8, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

LOL! Haha, I second Joe L’s motion at 2:04. All in favor say, “Zip it, Chuckie!” Haha! Unless of course Chuckie can prove he deserves a separate, different standard than what he advocates for others.

But back to the topic: Knowledge is power. Empower young people with all the knowledge and tools they need to take personal responsibility for themselves. We’re supposed to be training them to be ADULTS, not scared, superstitious little sheep who need a piece of paper from the government and permission from some robed pedophile to explore the great mysteries of life.

By Jack

January 8, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

Schools are in a way like candy stores. Members of the opposite sex are pieces of candy. OK boys and girls, you may look at the candy but you may not eat it until you are married. Uh huh. Yeah.

Hey Sweetness. :)

By CTM

January 8, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

The72John you still miss the point. We dont allow double standards on the job, (at least not mine) in the Army, in law enforcement, etc. But we want to teach a double standard to children when they are being formed to respect adults and themselves?? I can see you telling your 14 year old daughter going on a date with her 15 year old boyfriend “hey kids do you guys have your condoms just in-case you steam up the windows…driving without your learners permit??” I see kids and parents in the mall with you all the time. They cuss you out..show you mass disrespect in public because you mislead them in private. You as parents need to practice abstinience so you wont bring up any more confused kids. Or in Diane’s case don’t have any and talk foolishness to adults…no harm done!!!!!!!!

By chuck

January 8, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this

First little Joe, you’ve made what, 3 posts on this blog and the first 2 were about others having “no argument”. A little weak don’t ya think to be criticizing others in that regard.

Second, if BC was a parent, he would understand that it is NOT the parents who have abdicated responsibility for raising their children who are against “anything goes” sex education. Parents who are raising their children the right way are being undermined by a system that says “we know you are going to have sex anyway so here is how you can avoid the consequences of it.” That attitude is why so many kids are having sex at early ages NOT abstinence education.

The school nurse can’t give my kid an aspirin without my permission but some butcher can go in and do major surgery on that same daughter WITHOUT MY PERMISSION?!?!

While you do need at least some experience such as teaching OR actually being a parent to understand how children think and to know what works with them and what doesn’t, you don’t have to BE a murderer to KNOW that murder is wrong. So as I said earlier…Bite Me.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

Actually chuck, I have posted on this blog various times over the past year plus. I just don’t have to shout my (usually uninformed) opinion when many others hear have already expressed similar thoughts. Second you made a sad and desparate attempt at an “argument” that holds zero logical value when it’s held to the light. And thus you had no response outside that which I would expect from a 6 yr old (who matches both your maturity and intellect).

Kids are having sex at a younger age because we live in a society where they are being sexualized and poor role models are held up for them everyday and the parents are the most culpable of all parties. And surveys and anecdotal evidence shatter the false belief that people didn’t have tons of pre-marital sex in the past. It’s just a more dangerous world than the one where at worst you had to get one shot in the butt and everything was okay.

And you are a moron if you think that only parents have ever dealt with children or understand how they think. Because only half of us have been women, but ALL of us were children once. Of course in most of our cases we moved past that stage of development and reflect back on it but not for others like yourself.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

No, CTM, I don’t miss the point. You are still confusing issues of right and wrong with morally neutral issues. It isn’t a double standard to teach children openly about sex and give them both the positives and the negatives about the activity. It’s simply complete education.

It’s time we woke up to the fact that people have been having sex for centuries and will continue to do so. You can pretend that sex doesn’t happen, but it does. Given the choice, if my neice decides she’s going to have sex, I’d much prefer that she use a condom and be safe than not.

By Suzi-Q

January 8, 2007 03:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck quick question: do you consider your daughter yours? Is she your property?

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

And you don’t have to be a parent to know that brainwashing kids with religious bigotry and superstition is wrong.

So… well, you know the rest.

By Jack

January 8, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

Chuck. I see your point. This is not the “Leave it to Beaver” days. The Mrs. and I were talking the other day after I heard someone on regular TV say the lord’s name in vain. back in the “old” days, couples didn’t sleep in the same bed, curse words were a no no and forget about nudity. Now we can hear everything but the “F” word, see people doing “it” and talking about it and bare arses. We can mention abstinence but the responsibilities associated with sex should also be taught as these times they are a changing. (and the candy will be eaten whatever we do.)

By Jack

January 8, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

It’s time we woke up to the fact that people have been having sex for centuries and will continue to do so. You can pretend that sex doesn’t happen, but it does.

HA HA HA ! I needed that one. Gotta go. See ya next week.

By Lyrazel

January 8, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

Joe L you said: Reality teaches us that since the dawn of time people have sex and nearly always before marriage. Anyone who studies history knows this is not true. Historically children were married at a much younger age—twelve-fourteen or if nobility age 3-10.

Recent findings have uncovered that teens who abstain from sex who marry young (right out of high school or drop-out) end up divorced. This is one reason southern states have such high divorce rates (but include here global stats and countries where arranged first marriages are dominant also have high first marriage divorce rates)—so its not just one religion or country coping with this. Which is worse, teen sex or teen divorce (which probably includes a child by then)? This is one of the facts etc. did not want to expose, also the fact that the health of GA babies is considerably less than other states.

One can always look at countries in western Europe and find very thorough sex education, very low teen births, very low marriage rates and very low birth rates. Which is worse?

By CTM

January 8, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

The72John, if you had a daughter (not your niece) you would’nt be commenting so recklessly. I guess I’m unaware of having been in college for 4 years , totally oblivious of the premarital sex stats. But again I see parents and kids like you in public all the time. Scene 1 Act 1: Nicole is 14. Dad is 46. Dad to Nicole: please get off the cell phone now and let’s go. Nicole to Dad: shut up and go get me my condoms cause I might decide to have sex tonight and justify the stats you boast. My boyfriend who I was just talking to wants to abstain but I told him you are cool with it. Thanks dad, in about three years I’ll be the school tramp. The72John, the operation is simple and painless. It’s call a vasectomy.

By chuck

January 8, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

You are right about one thing little Joe. Your opinion is “UNINFORMED”. Name ONE survey that “proves” your point. I don’t recall saying that people NEVER had pre-marital sex, but I can assure you statistics will show that there has been a MARKED increase in the past 30-40 years in pre-marital sex, births out of wed-lock, and divorce. No doubt, the promiscuous ideas of the sixties and seventies have taken hold, probably for good, but not for THE good.

Abstinence only programs can only overcome so much. Children are confronted at every turn with sexually charged material. Great cartoon in the paper yesterday. Pediatrician talking to Mom, little kid by the door says, “Yes I think your child IS being overly exposed to sensual material. He asked me if I thought Cialis was right for him.”

The point is that it IS the job of parents to educate their own children in these things. It is NOT the role of government to UNDERMINE what I am teaching my children at home.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 03:39 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - Firstly nobility are such a minute percentage of the world’s population they are not important to any discussion. Second, many of those people who were married at 12-15 had sex before those marriages (if they ever actually got married which was often reserved only for the more well off). It wasn’t until the Victorian times that sex became the vastly tabboo subject it is today in America. In the middle ages people were not overly concerned with virginity.

And if I understand your comments about arranged marriages these are actually more resilient than Western marriages. Not that I would say that makes them superior.

Are you saying that there is something wrong with low teen birth rates? I’m not sure I see where your last comments are going.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

No Chuck I was saying that you spew YOUR vastly uninformed opinions constantly and I have enough maturity to not have to parrot what has been expressed already.

Actually statistics show you are wrong about sex. I was reading a book about WWII recently and vet mentioned sex and said “We were having just as much pre-marital sex back then, people just didn’t talk about it”. Your perception, like many other things about you, is vastly skewed.

Out of wedlock births is due to changes in cultural acceptance (and mostly a poor move at that) NOT anything to do with increases in pre-marital sex nor sex education.

The government is in no way undermining what you teach and only a fundamental zealot who can only teach through ignorance and isolation would think that. Oh yeah, I forgot who I was talking to again…

By The72John

January 8, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this

The very same institute that Chuckie “borrowed” from earlier is responsible for the recent pre-marital sex study.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html

It will come as no surprise to many of you that all sorts of fundamentalist-type web sites are shrilly proclaiming that the study is wrong, wrong, wrong…but then, they also think the world is six thousand years old, so consider the source.

If 95% of all Americans have engaged in pre-marital sex, then…who is out of step?

By The72John

January 8, 2007 03:58 PM | Link to this

The government is in no way undermining what you teach and only a fundamental zealot who can only teach through ignorance and isolation would think that. Oh yeah, I forgot who I was talking to again

Seriously. You know, it’s sad how little “faith” Chuck has in his own parenting skills. A rational human being who trusts his children would feel secure in his child being exposed to knowledge without feeling the need to act on it.

If Chuck or anyone else has taught their children that sex is something that should take place only within marriage, then why would merely having more knowledge about sex overturn that teaching?

“Dad, I know that you’ve always taught me that I shouldn’t have sex before marriage because we believe it’s wrong, but I’ve recently learned about something called a condom. I’m off to screw like a bunny - later!”

I seriously don’t see it happening. Of course, people like Chuck hate and fear knowledge because it is inimical to superstition and that’s all he and his ilk really have to live for.

By Brian Curtis

January 8, 2007 03:59 PM | Link to this

Presenting the facts is only “undermining” what you teach your kids if you’ve chosen to hide the facts from them. How is that the school’s fault?

The facts are these: sex education is necessary because parents were (and are) living in denial rather than educating their kids on these important topics.

Sexual activity is neutral, not wicked; if students choose to avoid it entirely (i.e., abstinence), fine. If not, it’s best that they understand what they’re doing and what could happen, just as with driver’s ed. There is no moral or ethical difference.

There’s nothing contradictory or confusing about presenting information on a topic without any pushing or leading, as schools do. If you want to skew their choices in the direction you prefer (such as toward abstinence), that’s YOUR job as a parent… not the school’s.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

Brian - I think in a general sense I basically agree with what you are saying, but I don’t know if I would go as far as to say sex is neutral. I think that between adults that is certainly true. I think that teens are still very emotionally immature and commit risky behavior too easily and therefore sex is a little more loaded of an issue. As a matter of fact I wish more sex ed was really about the social issues surrounding sex and not just the “nuts and bolts” (no pun inteneded). But I think for the most part we are in agreement and it’s probably more a matter of semantics.

Certainly we are in complete agreement about parenting. It’s funny that fundies will rail against knowledge which is by it’s nature neutral (evolution, sex ed, etc.) and say it’s “undermining” them when all it’s doing is exposing their children to cold hard facts.

By lozen

January 8, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this

Zip it, Chuckie!

By Jessica Alba

January 8, 2007 04:18 PM | Link to this

Hi! Thank you for good site! http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html - Jessica Alba Nude Jessica Alba Nude [URL=http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html]Jessica Alba Nude[/URL] [LINK=http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html]Jessica Alba Nude[/LINK]

By Jessica Alba

January 8, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this

Hi! Thank you for good site! http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html - Jessica Alba Nude Jessica Alba Nude [URL=http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html]Jessica Alba Nude[/URL] [LINK=http://www.corazonpartio.com/temp/jessica-alba-nude.html]Jessica Alba Nude[/LINK]

By chuck

January 8, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

So YOUR SUPERIOR point of view is based on an anecdotal comment from ONE WWII era guy and you say MY opinion is uninformed?!?!

little joe, you are obviously as warped as 72john…sound and fury signifying nothing.

The Guttmacher Institute is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. The Guttmacher Institute publishes Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, International Family Planning Perspectives, The Guttmacher Policy Review and special reports on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The Institute’s mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation

Not exactly a conservative group john.

By Lily Toad

January 8, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this

some butcher can go in and do major surgery on that same daughter WITHOUT MY PERMISSION?!?!

Chuck, you better hope abortion stays legal or else it will be butchers who will be performing abortions WITHOUT REGULATION.

By Joe L

January 8, 2007 04:30 PM | Link to this

Chuck, chuck, chuck again your comprehension skills fail. I pointed out that SURVEYS show you are wrong and those surveys have always been posted. I also pointed out an anecdotal evidence that shows that people like you are delusional about the “good ol’ days” and how different things are now. More things are in the light, but they have always been going on.

Sound and fury signifying nothing? Hypocrisy thy name is chuck. Actually fury would imply that you had some sort of weight in your rants. It’s more like whimpers and gossamer signifying nothing with you.

The Guttmacher Institute is the most highly regarded SCIENTIFIC group studying reproduction and sexual issues. But again you can’t even accept simple facts and reality so why would complex science be any easier for you?

By Jen

January 8, 2007 04:39 PM | Link to this

Abstience programs should not seen as programs funded by the government, but rather programs for parents to invest in the future of their own children. When the schools host abstinence education programs, it feels like another school subject to children and is therefore not very useful. If the parents are send kids to these programs on their own time using their own resources, then kids may be more “inclined” to pay attention and learn. Parents can all use it as an opportunity to spark a discussion on that very uncomfortable conversation that all parents need to have with their children. As the rate of HIV is increasing among lower-income communities,now more than ever there is an even greater need for abstinence education programs.

By lozen

January 8, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

What great comments from JoeL, John72, BrianCurtis. It’s true, people like Chuck hate and fear simple knowledge and for exactly the reasons you state. Chuck did manage somehow to cling to his superstitions and get an education. The way he did that was to develop a system of such rigidity he can’t even begin to admit that he could be wrong. Sex before marriage is wrong, bad, immoral! Why? Because a book written thousands of years ago says so! Simple. As long as you stay in your mind-box and never, ever let yourself step outside it.

By The72John

January 8, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

As the rate of HIV is increasing among lower-income communities,now more than ever there is an even greater need for abstinence education programs.

Except that as we keep saying over and over and over, abstinence programs don’t work. The ONLY sources that claim that they do are those with some kind of vested interest in them, be they the purveyors of said programs or conservative religious organizations.

Every objective study of abstinence education programs that I have ever seen has said unequivocally that they do not do anything to stop children from engaging in sexual activity, and that while the kind of moral bludgeoning that religious conservatives engage in may prevent vaginal intercourse, it does NOT stop oral and even anal intercourse.

If teens don’t learn about the proper use of condoms and safe sex yet still engage in ONLY oral or anal sex, they are STILL at risk for diseases. It absolutely boggles the mind that there are so many naive people out there who think that all the abstinence programs in the WORLD are going to stop teenagers from heeding the call of their hormones. Don’t you WANT your kids to know how to keep from DYING?

By GOB

January 8, 2007 05:09 PM | Link to this

Joe L - You really are completely wasting your time arguing with Chuck. I mean, he believes that there were dinosaurs on the arc with Noah. If someone can believe that, there is no point using logic and rational thought when trying to debate them.

By CTM

January 8, 2007 05:18 PM | Link to this

ATTENTION ALL KIDS, ATTENTION ALL KIDS, The72John and lozen will be conductn “After School Classes” on sex education just in case the school system drops the ball. Condoms will be handed out after the session. Razors will also be distributed just in case any of you girls become cutters due to feelings of rejection and abusive overbearing boyfriends. Drug education will also be offered on weekends and sample drugs will be given to prevent shell shock at parties. Call 1-800-the-72JO helpline any hour of the nite in-case you need counseling on keeping a steady supply of condoms or razors or drugs. After graduation from these classes you must promise to sign up for “Swingers 101”.

Tell me please…where do you draw the line???????

By blablabla

January 8, 2007 05:42 PM | Link to this

any education in schools regarding sex should contain all the facts - meaning we should inform our young people about what their options are and, just as importantly, the consequences of their actions. no spin, no religious dogma, no “sex is taboo”…just the honest truth.

i’m fine with part of that equation including abstinence. in fact, it needs to include abstinence - it’s one of the options, and when considering one’s personal health and the impact on society - it’s probably the best option for young and immature teenagers. i don’t think i’m going out on a limb by saying 14 year olds probably shouldn’t be having sex. but abstinence is only a piece of the education, and relying solely on abstinence strikes me as putting our collective head in the sand. pragmatically speaking, we all know that in today’s society, lots of teens will engage in various forms of sexual behavior. whether that’s a good thing or not is a different topic, but acting like it doesn’t happen and not arming our children with all the facts is ludicrous.

brian touches on a good point - parents need to be involved when it comes to the sexual education of our children. relying solely on the school system has several obvious drawbacks.

By Chica

January 9, 2007 08:38 AM | Link to this

ATTN AJC,Shaunti & Diane:

You just lost a reader. I don’t appreciate all the porn you allow to remain on a blog for Women (& the men who love them lol)

It’s offensive nobody does anything about it that’s all.
And the topic is how to keep young people from having sex???????????? Does anybody see the irony here?

Maybe I’ll check back in a few weeks & see if there has been change. :) bye all.

By Brian Curtis

January 9, 2007 08:39 AM | Link to this

CTM: Your hysteria notwithstanding, I suggest we “draw the line” where reasonable people always have… when something reaches the point of hurting someone or violating their rights.

Having safe, consensual sex, of course, does neither.

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2007 08:44 AM | Link to this

And we worry about teens being exposed to sex but the AJC keeps up the running tab of spam sex-links? Now, why does a newspaper not supervise itself, cull the unwanted ads that were not paid to advertise? What we see here is an important commentary the AJC is making toward this column. NOWHERE ELSE on the AJC is spam allowed so rampant!

Joe, I was not saying arranged marriage was good. My point is Most people who argue for abstinence programs do so siting that it decreases teen sex and further, sex before marriage is a sin. Thus they encourage young people to get married before having sex—even before these teens understand the consequences of marriage and its difficulty; thus so many divorces. I dont feel that you can have a discussion about abstinence without discussing some of the consequences: divorce.

One of the biggest reasons teens have sex is because ADULTS lure them into it. Most teenage girls think their classmates are: inferior, not mature, dumb…but Studly DuBois down the street who can get her champagne at 4:00pm while mom and dad are at work…and easily coerce her into sex because he is: older, has a cool car, has a big screen TV. Most teen sex occurs while the parents are at work—not with other teens but with adults.

Training adults to abstain from having sex with minors is never mentioned mainly because our society loves its: teen slut porn—loves its pop a virgin porn—loves its sweet innocent girls gone wild—and if one looks at the film industry and media current stars ages 50+ usually are portrayed in roles with women in their early 20s as wives & sex partner. The role of sex-object comes early in this society and is promoted everywhere popular culture. Look at the Disney studio and its stable of slut-teens: Britany, Lindsay etc…sweet girls gone wild all promoted by such studios.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

Did Chuck say Noah’s Ark had dinosaurs? I thought it was dinosaur eggs, set in hay, in wooden crates, hand-carried on to the ark by Shem and Them. And then when the little dinies broke out of the eggs, they were immediately pounced upon by a larger predator, and THAT was why/how the dinosaurs went extinct. Okay, maybe I ad-libbed that last part. LOL

By lozen

January 9, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

That CTM post at 5:18 yesterday was truly hysterical! Loco.

By Mara

January 9, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Archie - thanks for the pat on the back yesterday

Lyrazel - the NYT recently did a peice about the rising number or porn actresses in the 40+ age group. I happened to catch an interview with the reporter (sharon waxman) on CNN. Titled “The Graying of Naughty”, the article itself is sequestered behind their “subscription only” firewall.

Stinkin’ bastidges!

By The72John

January 9, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

Lyrzael, do you have any evidence that would support your assertion that most teenagers are having sex with adults? Because, forgive me, I don’t buy it. Most teenagers are having sex with other teenagers if what I hear from teens is remotely true.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Not that I know THAT much about it(LOL. maybe in the course of some research, once), but for every teen-girl porn site, there is probably a cougar/MILF site(30 years old and over).

By Reason

January 9, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

“Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.”

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

72John: although I did not bookmark this I tend to get such facts from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Also look at Planned Parenthood/stats for teens having more sex during the hours of 3-6pm after school.

Chilao, bet you there are MORE teen sites(adults playing teens, of course). Also dont forget the teen webcam plethora as well as chat sites where the only people on are cops and pedophiles…The double standard of not wanting teens to have sex and the culture of youth exploitation by media/fashion/music still grows.

Mara: old men porn does not seem to exist does it?

By Archie

January 9, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, I have to ask the same question as 72John about this teenage sex opinion of yours. Also, to CTM, I was given condoms a few years ago the University of SC. They had a health fair and as an alumni I received the leftovers upon entering the PE center. Drugs are illegal and razors are way different than condoms. I feel as we are beating a dead horse but the best approach is sex education and abstinence combined not one or other. As a dad I have already said that I would prefer abstinence for my child but I don’t want my child ignorant. People make mistakes all the time which is why we have airbags,etc. All drivers know if you run a red light you risk serious bodily harm but just in case you do something crazy let’s educate you on the value of seatbelt use and airbags,child restraints, what to do in the event you are hit but are okay. There is nothing wrong with 72John’s attitude on this subject and I don’t understand why he would be bashed on this subject because his opinion is quite logical.

By Logic

January 9, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

“All overgeneralizations are false, every last one of them!”

By Monica

January 9, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Sex “education” should be taught even in abstinence only programs. There are actually girls out there who are pregnant because their boyfriend told them “girls can’t get pregnant if they are on top.” Kids need to know what they are supposed to abstain from!

~Please excuse me for ending that last sentence with a preposition.~

By Lyrazel

January 9, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Did I bash someone Archie? If so I apologize. I believed I just answered the question as to where I got references to statements I post.

“All overgeneralizations are false, every last one of them!” Even yours Logic?

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - well, I am not going to get BellSouth DSL and hit the end of the internet to tally them all up, so I’ll take your word for it… Reminds me of the L&O-SVU where they barge in on some film shoot, thinking they can arrest the people for child porn, coming to find out, the little-girl ‘cheer-leader/actress’ is 23 years old.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

doing a google on The Graying of Naughty yields alot of interesting blog-topics related to the subject. however the NYT has ‘porn’ in the url, so it is unavailable from work.

By Conscience

January 9, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

“47.9 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot”

By Archie

January 9, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel I never said you bashed 72John. There were some folk that called him by name and those were the people I was referring to. You must have glossed over my post. No need for you to apologize. I defend people on the right and the left because we all have opinions.

By Chilao

January 9, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

37.7948 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot

LMAO

By The72John

January 9, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Monica,

I don’t think you fully understand what an abstinence only program entails. There is no information given, no education about sex. Abstinence only programs are just that…abstinence only. They don’t tell kids about birth control, they don’t tell them about anything other than “Don’t have sex.” The assumption, of course, is that if teens abstain from sex, they don’t NEED to know anything else.

It’s why abstinence-only programs are so deeply flawed - the assumption that upon being exposed to them that no teen will ever have sex. That’s simply not a reasonable assumption, but the Ab-Only programs are so ideologically rooted that they are unable to even consider the possibility that some, or even MANY teens will engage in sexual activity even after being exposed to the Ab-only program.

I have absolutely no problem with the concept of abstinence, or with abstinence being taught to students in sex-ed. Its the absence of all other information that disturbs me.

By The72John

January 9, 2007 01:05 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

I have to point out that there is a distinct bias on this board from a number of posters whenever this kind of topic comes up. The focus is always on girls, and girls are almost always portrayed as being innocent little lambs led astray by bad men. I have some issues with this.

First - why do you assume that girls aren’t as sexually driven as boys? I remember being a teenager, and I remember the girls I went to high school with talking about sex as much as the guys. Why are girls the victim in sex? Isn’t it likely that most sex is consensual?

Second - in response to the specific assumption, that most sex takes place between younger girls and older men while their parents are at work. If all the teenage girls are having sex with older men, then…who are all the teenage boys having sex with?

By Mara

January 9, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel - Mara: old men porn does not seem to exist does it?

LOL!! It’s that old double standard again. I can easily think of more than one guy who’d look at anything nekkid and female, but for some reason all the women I know who use porn seem to prefer strapping young hunks! How shallow! LOL!!!

Monica - “girls can’t get pregnant if they are on top.” - and you still hear those myths today! Like doucheing immediately afterwards, or having him “pull out”, or virgins can’t get pregnant…soooooo dangerous for these young ladies :^(

By Mara

January 9, 2007 01:24 PM | Link to this

John - perhaps the girls are usually portrayed as relatively innocent because historically, the girl is younger than the boy, thus usually doesn’t have the maturity or the experience of the boy. One routinely hears about 18-19 year-old men hitting on 13-14 year-old girls, but not often the other way around. It’s more common now than in the past, but still…

I certainly agree that girls can be as randy as boys and just as courious and persistant. Unfortunately nature has made the physical and social consequences of experimentation a bit more severe for girls than boys. IMO, of course.

By Monica

January 9, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

John, I know that abstinence only programs only talk about abstinence. That’s why I said that it needed to include information about sex. Even if they don’t talk about birth control, they need give info on sex.

And I agree with you that girls are falsely portrayed as the innocent victim. I worry about my boys falling prey to girls with less than wholesome plans. It may be a sexist statement, but I think that boys have a more difficult time saying no than do girls (given that so many girls advertise their w