Mark Sebree wrote:

Sneechres wrote:

Mark Sebree wrote:

Sneechres wrote:

Mark Sebree wrote:

Therefore, a working hypothesis can be made that the fact

that

we

repress sexual knowledge (i.e. knowledge about sex and

contraceptives)

contributes to our high teen pregnancy rate.

Hm, do you think if schools started being repressive about

math,

it

would lead to a higher rate of teens doing math?

No, it would lead to a greater failure at math, just as the

of

comprehensive, honest, and open sexual education leads to a

greater

failure at knowledge of sex and the proper use of

thus

leading to a greater incidence of unplanned pregnancy.

Actually that's incorrect.

No, it is not. You are the one that set up the faulty analogy.

Calling analogies faulty just because they expose your logic as silly
is not what makes them faulty. You'll have to do better than that.

Teaching math leads to the production of
more math.

But not teaching math at all does not lead to math being used.

To hear you tell it, it does.

Make it taboo, and people will go out of
their way to find out about it.

Curiosity killed the cat, don't you know.

Teaching sex has led to the practice of more sex, just as
sexual revolutionists wanted.

No.

Apparently you skipped statistics as well as math.

Teaching comprehensive sex ed does not lead to more sex,

Except that it has.

This is documented.

It is an undeniable fact that
there is a higher rate of teenage pregnancies and sexually

diseases than there were fifty years ago.

The puritans may have had their problems, but AIDS was not one of

You cannot turn around and call it a
failure when in fact it has been a huge success.

Abstinence Only sex ed is a failure.

Interesting declaration for a program that's never been tried.

Read the Waxman Report.

I'm not interested in the Waxman report.

I'm interested in your
arguments. I guess appealing to some authority means you are having
trouble making them?

Very few people ever do
drugs,

Actually, it seems drugs and sex in high school are equally

rampant,

and usually somehow go together.

Far, far less that you seem t think.

I doubt it.

The overwhelming majority of
today's teens have sex before they graduate high school,

Funny, the overwhelming majority of them have tried drugs, too.

and I doubt
that even half of them have ever done drugs.

I don't.

Not that it's the rate that matters; don't you want to teach the

truth

to protect The Children?

You are the one that wants to withhold information from them and

teach

them lies, not me.

No, I don't. Sexual education information is free at any local
library. No one is withholding information from anyone.

I am for comprehensive and scientifically accurate
sex ed programs.

Regardless of whether they work or not.

You are wanting to teach them the abridged version

I want them to be taught whatever their parents deem appropriate.

most people have sex. Knowing how to have sex safely and with
minimizing the chance unwanted pregnancies should be the goal

sex

ed, since it is futile to try to tell them not to have sex.

If it's futile to tell people not to have sex, is it equally

to

tell them not to use firearms, drugs, not to murder, or a host of

other

"uncontrollable" behaviors?

However, there is some big difference that you are ignoring, again.

Not differences that make a difference. ;)

People are actually ENCOURAGED to have sex, either after they get

enough, or after they get married, depending on the source.

But, you just said they weren't. And I quote:

"I never stated that anyone was being encouraged to have sex before
she or she was ready."

Which is it?

What's more, consensual sex hurts nobody.

Tell that to the people on the AIDS quilt.

The same is not true for any of your examples.

Yes, it is, that is why I made them.

Firearms are licensed

and designed to hurt others.

And?

Some people need to be hurt. Why not teach fourteen year old
girls the finer points if firearms ownership and concealed carry? It
could save their lives someday. Lots of rapists out there.

Murder is illegal and kills another
person.

And? Your argument hasn't exactly helped to curb the murder rate.

What we need is better, more comprehensive education!

Drugs are licensed or illegal, depending on the drug.

Why is it realistic to expect people not to do drugs?

Therefore, again, your analogy has failed by using examples that

nothing to do with what you are comparing them to.

They have everything to do with what they are comparing them to.
You're just being a hypocrite.

On the one hand, you expect people to
act like animals when it comes to their sex lives because apparently
they are too stupid, irrational, or evolutionarily challenged to help
themselves.

But on the other hand you expect them to act rational and
civilized by not committing murder or using drugs or any other

behaviors.

Your viewpoint is called inconsistent. Or, if you prefer,
two-faced.

They send the ignorant ones
to drive the vehicles to blow stuff up.

Some of the 9-11 hijackers were well educated, supposedly.

But they were not the ones masterminding the operation, nor were

rigging the explosives.

Osama bin Laden is well educated and rich, rich, rich.

Then why do you need drug companies to concoct you a special

so

you can prevent pregnancy?

Because condoms are not 100% effective.

Hm, is that one of those things you hope teens are taught in sex ed?
Here's a clue: THEY ARE.

Why don't you just have your partners tested before you have sex with
them?

Or, better yet, stop having sex with people you aren't married
to or don't know?

And using multiple
contraceptives reduces the chance of pregnancy greatly.

Know what reduces it entirely? Abstinence.

However, an effective male contraceptive would reduce the

of pregnancy by reduce the amount of sperm in the semen. No

sperm,

no

fertilization, no pregnancy.

That is how condoms work.

I know. However, condoms can break. And some people are allergic

latex, a natural substance, and therefore cannot use condoms.

That's what the polyurethane ones are for.

And
multiple contraceptive methods are always a good idea.

Well, unless you have health problems that prevent their use.

Women use birth control and still have their lovers use condoms,

when both are disease free and monogamous.

Which women are these?

Why do you think that is?

Because they are ignorant and want to end up with a sexually
transmitted disease?

Here's a question for you, Mr. Sex Ed: What is the prevention
mechanism for human papilloma virus?

Describe this virus, it's possible ramifications for women, and it's
cures.

You might also ask why a woman that is using birth control

a

man

to use a condom.

She wouldn't.

Yes, she would. Most women do.

Most women?

You know most women that well that you are intimately
familiar with what birth control methods they prefer? You must be

well traveled.

I thought the arguments were that Africans have a higher rate of AIDS
because they weren't using condoms.

Maybe you meant to say "most women
I've slept with."

They are free at any public school

I have no reason to be in one.

Free condoms. Now you have a good reason.

I can afford to get them without any problem.

That's because they're almost as cheap as tap water.

You would think
that kids could afford their own. But no.

Besides, I would not be
able to get in the front door of many schools nowadays because of

their

heightened security.

You could if you had a badge that said "Planned Parenthood" on it.

Now if those classes were any good, they might help.

You wouldn't know. I took sex ed three times when I was in high
school.

Because you kept flunking it, by the sounds of it.

Hard to do well in a subject I wasn't involved in.

But to hear you tell it, at least that's one subject you aced.

Way to
go, tiger! Who needs math when you know how to put a condom on a
banana?

There wasn't a topic they didn't cover.

But did they cover the subjects honestly and completely?

Yep.

By your

posts, I would have to assume that they did not.

Really, which posts gave you the impression that my high school did

have comprehensive sex ed? Refresh my memory.

But then, you may
have just been a poor student.

What does this have to do with me?

I don't have the problems that need
to be prevented with high-school level sexual education.

If I failed
sex ed, it's because I had no use for it.

Yet, my high school
had to have a nursery for the teen mothers.
So we see how well it
worked.

--S

First, not everyone learns what is taught until too late.

Where should we start? Second grade?

When I went, sex ed started in the fifth grade. I don't recall any

my classmates turning up pregnant that early. I guess they waited
until after the second round of sex ed, in the seventh grade.

Second, if

you are any indication, they did not cover the material very well

very completely.

Really, which indication are you referring to?

There are holes in your knowledge big enough to drive

a Mac Truck through.

Like which?

--S