On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:30:55 +0000 in episode
<3lDCc.6706$H4.307@www.newsranger.com> we saw our hero Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com>:

In article <40DA0717.39A53822@ayhoo.com>, ujb says...

"j weatherly

Sex education can/should
be done in the home. Who knows if the school (anti-God,

will give my children the slant on sex that I want them to have?

That statement sure does open the doors to the imagination. You have

a way with words pal!

Here's jw's "slant" on sex:

Her first Time"

"F***k me!" she moaned beneath me as my c*** slid deep and hit bottom,
glancing off her ...

Hit bottom?

On second thought, first person who tries to explain gets it in the

--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:30:55 +0000 in episode
<3lDCc.6706$H4.307@www.newsranger.com> we saw our hero Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com>:

In article <40DA0717.39A53822@ayhoo.com>, ujb says...

"j weatherly

Sex education can/should
be done in the home. Who knows if the school (anti-God, anti-Christian)
will give my children the slant on sex that I want them to have?

That statement sure does open the doors to the imagination. You have such
a way with words pal!

Here's jw's "slant" on sex:

Her first Time"

"F***k me!" she moaned beneath me as my c*** slid deep and hit bottom,
glancing off her ...

Hit bottom?

On second thought, first person who tries to explain gets it in the shins...

x-no-archive: yes

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:02:05 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
john w replied under copyright 2004 (keep it in the group, folks)

"j weatherly

x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:18:58 GMT, "Scout Lady" <scoutlady@nospam.net>
wrote:
john w replied under copyright 2004 (keep it in the group, folks)

"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:40D83AE4.E5D2254@serv.net...

Cheerful Pickle wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:54:29 -0700, Famousdog wrote:

"I know! Rather than educate our kids about safe sex lets convince
them to "save themselves" until after they've married some dork and
then let them find out on their wedding night that neither of them
knows how to do it."

Hi, Famousdog,

What are you talking about? Don't you know anything? I know quite a

few

youths who have taken purity pledges. All of them learned about all

there

is to know about safe sex in the schools and about an alternative
(chastity) in church. To me, this gives them choice. You would deny

them

that choice by only telling them half the story. Yes, they do not have

to

be pure, but they have the choice to do so.

The problem is that the church groups pushing the purity pledges are also
fighting tooth and nail to eliminate sex education from the classroom.

What church groups are pushing purity pledges and fighting tooth and nail to
eliminate sex education?

One I know of is the Baptists.

Specifically, the Southern Baptists Association. Most Baptist groups are nowhere
near as fundamentalist in doctrine and outlook as the SBA.

And I agree. Sex education can/should
be done in the home. Who knows if the school (anti-God,
anti-Christian) will give my children the slant on sex that I want
them to have?

"Slant?" What is "slanted" about medically accurate information on pregnancy
prevention?

"Slant" meaning the public school approach to sex education is
sometimes GRAPHIC textbooks that a lot of Christian parents have
complained is practically pornographic in photographic detail.

Slant
meaning the kids who are in public sex education are taught the
cleanness, the prevention, technique, and then told to "go and enjoy."

They have not been taught abstinence until they are mature enough to
handle it.

If the public school material were merely pregnancy and physiology
information, I'd have no complaints. It so happens, however, that I
have Christian friends with kids in Washington state public schools
who have called the public sex education "pornographic" in nature.

My son is in private, Christian school, and has learned his sex
education in that context.

That is,there is the world's approach, and there's the
Christian approach, and there's the Catholic approach.

Meaning that there is the factual approach, the superstitious approach and the
ostrich's approach.

Ridiculous. And you have now revealed your agenda.

Unless the public school does it, it isn't done correctly.

My point with the above list
was, the world teaches the kids anatomy, and pregnancy/disease
prevention, and then tells 9th graders "go have fun!"

The Christian approach is to teach them all the public school teaches
them, without using porn to do so,

and then teaching them the benefits
of abstaining until they're of age/married.

The Roman Catholic approach is to teach them the anatomy and the
prophylactic information, and then tell them sex is dirty and evil
unless you want to make babies.

Only one of these three approaches is proven, in actual
studies, to reduce both pregnancy and the incident of sexually transmitted
disease.

Nonsense. But I wouldn't expect you of tiny, uninformed, closed mind
to believe otherwise.

x-no-archive: yes

"Slant" meaning the public school approach to sex education is
sometimes GRAPHIC textbooks that a lot of Christian parents have
complained is practically pornographic in photographic detail. Slant
meaning the kids who are in public sex education are taught the
cleanness, the prevention, technique, and then told to "go and enjoy."
They have not been taught abstinence until they are mature enough to
handle it.

If the public school material were merely pregnancy and physiology
information, I'd have no complaints. It so happens, however, that I
have Christian friends with kids in Washington state public schools
who have called the public sex education "pornographic" in nature.

"Slant" meaning the public school approach to sex education is
sometimes GRAPHIC textbooks that a lot of Christian parents have
complained is practically pornographic in photographic detail. Slant
meaning the kids who are in public sex education are taught the
cleanness, the prevention, technique, and then told to "go and enjoy."
They have not been taught abstinence until they are mature enough to
handle it.

"Slant?" What is "slanted" about medically accurate information on pregnancy
prevention?

"Slant" meaning the public school approach to sex education is
sometimes GRAPHIC textbooks that a lot of Christian parents have
complained is practically pornographic in photographic detail.

Slant
meaning the kids who are in public sex education are taught the
cleanness, the prevention, technique, and then told to "go and enjoy."
They have not been taught abstinence until they are mature enough to
handle it.

If the public school material were merely pregnancy and physiology
information, I'd have no complaints.

It so happens, however, that I
have Christian friends with kids in Washington state public schools
who have called the public sex education "pornographic" in nature.

My son is in private, Christian school, and has learned his sex
education in that context.

That is,there is the world's approach, and there's the
Christian approach, and there's the Catholic approach.

Meaning that there is the factual approach, the superstitious approach and the
ostrich's approach.

Ridiculous. And you have now revealed your agenda. Unless the public
school does it, it isn't done correctly.

My point with the above list
was, the world teaches the kids anatomy, and pregnancy/disease
prevention, and then tells 9th graders "go have fun!"

The Christian approach is to teach them all the public school teaches
them, without using porn to do so, and then teaching them the benefits
of abstaining until they're of age/married.

The Roman Catholic approach is to teach them the anatomy and the
prophylactic information, and then tell them sex is dirty and evil
unless you want to make babies.

Only one of these three approaches is proven, in actual

studies, to reduce both pregnancy and the incident of sexually transmitted
disease.

Nonsense. But I wouldn't expect you of tiny, uninformed, closed mind
to believe otherwise.

"Pangur Ban" <Pangur-Ban@SatisHouse.org> wrote in message
news:OZ3Cc.117589$Gx4.43540@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Gregory Gadow wrote:

Cheerful Pickle wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 02:54:29 -0700, Famousdog wrote:

"I know! Rather than educate our kids about safe sex lets convince
them to "save themselves" until after they've married some dork and
then let them find out on their wedding night that neither of them
knows how to do it."

Hi, Famousdog,

What are you talking about? Don't you know anything? I know quite a

few

youths who have taken purity pledges. All of them learned about all

there

is to know about safe sex in the schools and about an alternative
(chastity) in church. To me, this gives them choice. You would deny

them

that choice by only telling them half the story. Yes, they do not have

to

be pure, but they have the choice to do so.

The problem is that the church groups pushing the purity pledges are

also

fighting tooth and nail to eliminate sex education from the classroom.

They

mistakenly believe that by knowing nothing about safer sex or the use of

birth

control, kids will be too ignorant or too frightened to have sex.

What a shame folks don't learn from history! Kids
will have sex when they decide to do so - fear or
no fear and ignorance or no ignorance. I
remember well the girls who got pregnant in my
high school in the 50's. Fear and ignorance just
doesn't work.

Pangur

I'm still waiting for the names of these churches that are pushing chastity
and fighting sex education tooth and nail............

--
Gregory Gadow for Washington State House
Independent, District 43
http://www.gregory-gadow.info

"j weatherly @yahoo.com>" <john_w<no> wrote in message
news:i1rjd09oev5kvakm7k3gbag9rlfcilkul4@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes

Each household has rules. And teens who take purity pledges do better
in school and are more socially balanced than teens who don't.
Reason being, those who have had the "sex" pressure taken off can
focus on school and other activities, and they face FAR less peer
pressure to have sex if the whole group in which they "travel" has
taken the same pledge.

Yes, exactly - if the whole group conforms to the same strictures. But
just as the person who abstains is liable to be pressurised by those
who don't, so the person who is sexually active is liable to be
pressurised by the abstainers. Why not focus on individual, informed
choice, and emphasise that pressure and coercion in either direction is
wrong? Individuals vary enormously in their physical and emotional
development and maturity, and what is right for one person at fifteen
or sixteen or seventeen isn't necessarily right for another at that
age. If sexual activity is seen as something that most people engage in
eventually, rather than as a competition or a benchmark of social
popularity, the whole issue becomes much less stressful.

"j weatherly @yahoo.com>" <john_w<no> wrote in message
news:i1rjd09oev5kvakm7k3gbag9rlfcilkul4@4ax.com...

x-no-archive: yes

Each household has rules. And teens who take purity pledges do better
in school and are more socially balanced than teens who don't. Reason
being, those who have had the "sex" pressure taken off can focus on
school and other activities, and they face FAR less peer pressure to
have sex if the whole group in which they "travel" has taken the same
pledge.

Yes, exactly - if the whole group conforms to the same strictures. But just
as the person who abstains is liable to be pressurised by those who don't,
so the person who is sexually active is liable to be pressurised by the
abstainers. Why not focus on individual, informed choice, and emphasise that
pressure and coercion in either direction is wrong? Individuals vary
enormously in their physical and emotional development and maturity, and
what is right for one person at fifteen or sixteen or seventeen isn't
necessarily right for another at that age. If sexual activity is seen as
something that most people engage in eventually, rather than as a
competition or a benchmark of social popularity, the whole issue becomes
much less stressful.