abstinece-only sex education

It's no use speaking of consent on a U.S. scale or even international. Laws on consent vary from state to state. I mean, if we teach Minnesota consent laws, what would we teach? Well, we could teach that it's okay for 8th graders to have sex with other 8th graders, since that's conforming to consent laws. But will that acheive the goal of educating children against sex?Not that I agree that it's right to teach people how to behave morally in school anyway. Just saying that your arguments don't fit one another. I mean, you want more abstinence to prevent the spread of disease, but don't seem to realize that the current laws don't say anything that would prevent youngens from boinging other youngens and incresing the spread of STDs.I mean, really, from what I can see in the laws, kids can legally have sex long before they even know what the hell it is. Certainly long before they are taught anything about it in school.J0N

No no no, you've got it all wrong. In my state, at least, coercion is defined in the following ways:

quote:

---

609.27 Coercion.

​

Subdivision 1. Acts constituting. Whoever orally or in writing makes any of the following threats and thereby causes another against the other's will to do any act or forbear doing a lawful act is guilty of coercion and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:

​

(1) a threat to unlawfully inflict bodily harm upon, or hold in confinement, the person threatened or another, when robbery or attempt to rob is not committed thereby; or

​

(2) a threat to unlawfully inflict damage to the property of the person threatened or another; or

​

(3) a threat to unlawfully injure a trade, business, profession, or calling; or

​

(4) a threat to expose a secret or deformity, publish a defamatory statement, or otherwise to expose any person to disgrace or ridicule; or

​

(5) a threat to make or cause to be made a criminal charge, whether true or false; provided, that a warning of the consequences of a future violation of law given in good faith by a peace officer or prosecuting attorney to any person shall not be deemed a threat for the purposes of this section.

​

Subd. 2. Sentence. Whoever violates subdivision 1 may be sentenced as follows:

​

(1) to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both if neither the pecuniary gain received by the violator nor the loss suffered by the person threatened or another as a result of the threat exceeds $300, or the benefits received or harm sustained are not susceptible of pecuniary measurement; or

​

(2) to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if such pecuniary gain or loss is more than $300 but less than $2,500; or

​

(3) to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if such pecuniary gain or loss is $2,500, or more.

​

HIST: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.27; 1971 c 23 s 40; 1977 c 355 s 7; 1983 c 359 s 87; 1984 c 628 art 3 s 11; 1986 c 444; 2004 c 228 art 1 s 72

​

Copyright 2005 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.

---

Sec. 609.27 MN Statutes

Really? Because you earlier said abstaning from sex was part of "moral behaviour" These don't sound like the words of someone who doesn't care.But whatever, I don't have the time to reread it all, especially since this will be closed soon. Only to say that someone who doesn't give a damn usually doesn't start an entire thread on the subject J0N

Well, seems a big misunderstanding then. Either way, I hope my responses get through to someone J0N