1 2 3
#1067248
Hakar
"Twenty-five percent of American girls now have sexually transmitted diseases."
How many of them had a disease 50 years ago?
12/7/2009 7:21:29 AM
#1067251
Eden
Maybe we should make separate statistics:
One about kids which were educated by standard Sex Ed (i.e. involving teaching kids about the biology of human sexuality, as well as the use of contraceptives)
and another one for kids which got Abstinence education (i.e. teaching them to wait till marriage and neglecting or totally leaving out lessons about contraceptives).
I assume the percentage of kids with STDs among the group which only got abstinence ed won´t be lower than the percentage of those among the kids which got real sex ed ;)
12/7/2009 7:30:40 AM
#1067255
aaa
I bet five bucks that these twats want abstinence-only programs.
12/7/2009 7:43:53 AM
#1067256
Commonly called "sexual freedom" by whom?
12/7/2009 7:45:51 AM
#1067262
Headache
Too bad, Chuck, that you don't want "sexual freedom".
If you had, I would have skull fucked your dumbass with a barbed wire wrapped cactus dipped in hydrochloric acid and sprinkled with caspaicin.
12/7/2009 7:50:30 AM
#1067267
Caustic Gnostic
25%? Can I trust that number?
12/7/2009 7:58:21 AM
#1067273
Lucilius
Actually, a study of the results of abstinence-only vs. standard sex education recently found that the abstinence-only kids did, on average, delay their first sexual experience by a few months – but the trade-off was that when they did become sexually active, they were far more likely to catch STDs or get pregnant. So it's actually fundies who are most likely to have poxy daughters and boys with worrisome discharges.
12/7/2009 8:08:50 AM
#1067280
SleepNeed
I remember when I was in my Catholic high school, the fiancee and I didn't get sex ed, aside from the whole "Sex for pleasure is evil, no sex till married" crap.
About 10 girls in my class got pregnant during the four years I spent there. Four had abortions, five raised till full term (where three of the fathers where never seen again, one of which went across the border and is now somewhere in Canada last anyone heard from him, illegally I'm sure) and one miscarried. I don't know about the STD rate.
So in my experience absence only education isn't working worth a damn. If kids want sex, they'll have sex and if all they know about is absence then the odds of them using condoms are lower than those that know about them.
When the fiancee and I started dating in our senior year of high school it was my black sheep uncle, who's an atheist as well, was the one who taught me about condoms.
12/7/2009 8:36:24 AM
#1067293
Doubting Thomas
"Twenty-five percent of American girls now have sexually transmitted diseases."
[citation needed]
If it were really that high, it would be considered an epidemic. Even prostitutes in Bangkok probably don't carry that much risk.
12/7/2009 8:50:31 AM
#1067294
Cassandra
> The result? Twenty-five percent of American girls now have sexually transmitted diseases.
Sounds awful! Back when I was at school, no one had sexually transmitted diseases! And our country has had very effective sex education programs!
> Even so, sex educators ignore the scientific data. I say it’s time to reign in public school sex education.
Translation:
We claim sex educators ignore the scientific data. It's high time we make sure everyone starts ignoring the data, too, and stop this sex education rubbish completely.
12/7/2009 8:51:04 AM
#1067300
louislois
I remember when Facebook was only for the intelligent and college educated....
12/7/2009 8:53:48 AM
#1067309
moose
"Sexual Freedom". Hmmm...sounds like what was being promoted in the 60's. I guess it was called "free love" back then.
So...25% of American girls have STD's? What do you mean by girls? All females? I seriously doubt that 25% of all females in the US have STD's. But feel free to show your proof.....I will not bother holding my breath. And just what "scientific data" are the sex educators ignoring? Care to elaborate on that?
Perhaps your parents needed some guidance on condoms.....think about that a minute.....
12/7/2009 9:06:53 AM
#1067312
BlackMageJ
You want to reign in Sex Ed? What, go around classes wearing a crown and commanding all the teenage girls to do your bidding? You warped bastard.
That's the kind of behaviour we need to rein in.
12/7/2009 9:08:43 AM
#1067318
The Watcher
You know, comprehensive sex ed programs DO talk about abstinence.
12/7/2009 9:21:06 AM
#1067324
Darwin's Lil' Girl
I say [Citation needed] on the STD thing.
ETA: The Watcher: They indeed do. My Sex Ed. teacher in grade nine taught us all about every kind of birth control method available, how to use it, even how to store condoms - but every class, sometimes more than once (if I recall correctly, it was even on our test) he said "The only 100% way to make sure you don't get pregnant or an STD is to not have sex."
12/7/2009 9:43:23 AM
#1067325
GodotIsWaiting4U
That's a bullshit statistic. Public school sex educators aren't trying to promote sexual freedom in general, they're trying to promote responsible sexual activity. There's a very big difference.
12/7/2009 9:46:03 AM
#1067331
Buy it, dickhead!
12/7/2009 9:57:57 AM
#1067347
Mrs. Antichrist
If anyone is ignoring the data, it's abstinence-only advocates. Girls who aren't taught about contraception and safe sex are significantly more likely to become pregnant or develop STDs than those who receive a proper education. Likewise, males who are taught about safe sex are less likely to develop STDs.
12/7/2009 10:33:03 AM
#1067348
Sasha
I say you're a liar. Give us proof or pull a plastic bag over your head.
12/7/2009 10:34:01 AM
#1067349
A Pedant
@#1067331
That book is so brilliant.
Spuriously round that 25%, and with no comparative datum.
12/7/2009 10:35:42 AM
#1067361
Clown
Statistics do not work that way.
12/7/2009 10:50:50 AM
#1067366
Doctor Whom
What do you say?
I say you're lying for Jesus. I remember reading about the counterevidence in the seventies. Tell me again who's ignoring the scientific data.
12/7/2009 10:54:51 AM
#1067367
JohnTheAtheist
This is a battle that the fundies can't win. It is not a conspiracy by the liberal left that wants to impregnate un-wed teenagers it is inevitable and unavoidable social forces at work.
100 years ago it was an economic necessity to marry young, much closer to the at which one becasme sexually mature, then to have as many kids as possible as quickly as possible so that you had more hands on the farm. Now it would be economic suicide to marry as a 15 year old and start pumping out kids. Kids are a huge drain economically now AND in order to become competitive in the modern economic marketplace one must get trained until at least their young 20's if not mid 20's.
If these stupid Family organizations think that it is reasonable to expect people to be sexually mature for 10+ years and not have sex then they are not operating anywhere near the realm of reality.
12/7/2009 10:55:25 AM
#1067369
Swede
I can't remember any girl in my school (up to 12th year) getting pregnant before graduation. There might have been one or two, that I did not notice or knew of. But one or two, or even five, in a school with over 1000 pupils (of both genders), that's rather good, isn't it?
If you learn about STDs, how to spot them and what to do if you spot them, then you have a good chance of getting rid of it in time. If you only have abstinence-only education, you won't know what hit you, and it will have become too late by the time you dare to ask someone about it.
We also learned that the best way to not get pregnant, and to not get STDs, are to not have sex.
12/7/2009 11:04:22 AM
#1067379
Musicalbookworm
What about the boys? Won't someone please think of the boys!
12/7/2009 11:30:20 AM
1 2 3