Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 8:48 PM
33 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, Tanypteryx (6 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,169 Year: 9,205/19,786 Month: 1,627/2,119 Week: 387/576 Day: 62/128 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   abstinece-only sex education
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 286 of 306 (315744)
05-28-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by macaroniandcheese
05-25-2006 9:50 AM


Re: misunderstanding
Please stop insulting me. I have given you questions and they were fair ones. If you don't want to answer then don't. If you want to then do it. But quit trying to attack me personally.

very simple ideas.

My point is that what sounds like a very simple idea, particularly when it comes to education, is not so simple in practice. Even points I agree with do not translate into points that would be easy to handle within a class, NOR (and this is more important) be thought right by others.

The devil is in the details. Otherwise we could simply teach "being the nicest and most successful human possible" and solve most of the world's problems.

in college, we have organizations that provide sex-ed sort of stuff... all i'm suggesting is that we format this to a more formal class setting and add in the medical discussion of how organs work and where hormones come from and then install it at the middle or high school level.

Yeah I went through some of that too. And I have come away with a different opinion on its merits as part of a sex education curriculum for kids. I have a post to schraf with a number of questions along this line. I will make some very specific ones to you here.

Your experience is from a voluntary situation, correct? Perhaps that is why it seemed to work as well as it did for you. There are also Xian lectures of the same kind (though Abs-only) and I have seen them and the people seem to believe those work (and according to one study above did with regard to saying no).

Now the question becomes, is what you went through going to be appropriate or felt appropriate by everyone? Particularly parents? Just because it "worked" for you does it mean that it is universally workable?

Should I agree that some Xian's experience at a college chastity group is supposed to argue that it will work or should be good for my kids? If your experience is supposed to make it good enough, then why not theirs?

How did your group deal with contentious sexual issues, and would that have been useful for those below college age?

What are objectively factual realities that may be taught regarding: boundaries and emotions and impact of sex? Indeed I am still waiting for an adequate explanation that sex has an "impact" of some kind that is not cultural in origin.

The concept of "date rape" itself is contentious. What objective definition was used, and would be agreeable to all parents or students? Given your legal observation that "if you love me..." counts as rape, I am still awaiting some evidence that you or your group provided accurate evidence regarding regular rape, much less "date rape".

If your group was so successful, why could its methods not be used to teach people how to say no until they were ready, and before they actually have sex that they should THEN privately seek clinical answers from a physician regarding sex?


holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-25-2006 9:50 AM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by arachnophilia, posted 11-06-2006 11:16 PM Silent H has responded

  
risesun123 
Inactive Suspended Junior Member


Message 287 of 306 (362158)
11-06-2006 1:05 PM


Stop Masturbation Now

Find out why masturbation is harmful for your health and many aspects of your life and what you can do to stop it. Read the only step-by-step program available in the world today and you will succeed in ending the habit of masturbation and start enjoying your life to the fullest. check

Spam spam spam spam

Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.


arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 288 of 306 (362300)
11-06-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Silent H
05-28-2006 9:47 AM


Re: misunderstanding
i'm sorry, i read back a few pages.

but what exactly is your position? i can't figure it out for the life of me. maybe i'm just stupid.

The concept of "date rape" itself is contentious. What objective definition was used,

contentious, yes, but there are such things as laws. since rape is something that happens between two (or more) people, there is a legal defition. while it's always debatable in court, (does "if you really love me..." count as coercion? technically consent that is not freely given constitutes rape under the law, but i could see this being argued in court...) most educational programs i'm aware of teach people how to avoid situations that may get them raped, or avoid situations where they could be a statutory rapist. it's not so much an issue of what is and what is not precisely legal, but how to avoid questionable situations.

If your group was so successful, why could its methods not be used to teach people how to say no until they were ready, and before they actually have sex that they should THEN privately seek clinical answers from a physician regarding sex?

people fuck.

really, they just do. it happens. it always has happened, and it always will happen. nothing you can say will stop people from fucking. it's not that abstinence-only fails, it's that abstinence fails. you can teach a person to wait all you want, but really it only takes one screw up. and people do screw up. and study after study has shown that ignorance is harmful.

how is a student to know the dangers of unprotected anal sex if you neither teach them about anal sex, nor protection? telling them to talk to a doctor before having sex is all well and good, until you realize that abstinence-only students tend to have anal and oral sex because they don't think it counts as sex.

yes, "wait, and talk to a doctor when you're ready" is responsible, but so is wearing a condom, and so is birth control. knowing that your first safety net is particularly unreliable (people fuck), would you rather have the second and third, or not?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Silent H, posted 05-28-2006 9:47 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 5:52 AM arachnophilia has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 289 of 306 (362349)
11-07-2006 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by arachnophilia
11-06-2006 11:16 PM


Spam restarts thread?
Man this is so old I had to read back several pages to figure out what the hell was going on. I'm not sure how my position could be any less clear than anyone else's starting from where we were at in the argument.

Your statements don't really effect me (yeah like I don't believe "people fuck", gimme a break) so I read back until I found out what was the cause of the dispute.

I argued that sex ed programs need only focus on physical issues involved with reproduction and protection (from diseases or pregnancy). This would deliver all that is REQUIRED to prevent harm, without adding cultural baggage which would cause people to reject the programs, or involve cultural indoctrination of others.

The programs schraf and brenna recommended involved cultural artifacts that did not make sense and would potentially be counterproductive. You CAN come up with a single program which discusses all of the physical dimensions of sexual activity as they will be the same for everyone everywhere, regardless of moral concepts and laws. One CANNOT come up with a single program that involves both physical and other dimensions of sexual activity.

Laws change from place to place.

most educational programs i'm aware of teach people how to avoid situations that may get them raped, or avoid situations where they could be a statutory rapist. it's not so much an issue of what is and what is not precisely legal, but how to avoid questionable situations.

You mean questionable situations such as fornication, or homosexuality? These are against the law in many cultures. Do you think it is smart to have a sex ed program that either discusses legality from just the US point of view, or one that attempts to understand and discuss sex from the legal standpoint of all the different cultures they'd be taught in?

Or we could skip it and deal with what happens once one finds onesself in a sexual situation no matter how or why one got there. The risk is the same.

Indeed I may paraphrase your later statements. Not only does abstinence fail, but so does avoidance of questionable or illegal activity.

The last quote of mine you were attacking was taken out of context. I was mocking brenna's claims for her own program. I don't think you can teach people to say no, and I don't think you can (or should) teach people what she wants. Abuse synonymous with death? Emotional manipulation (ie "If you love me you'll have sex with me") equated to rape? Sheesh.

Everything you said in reply supported my position.


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by arachnophilia, posted 11-06-2006 11:16 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by nator, posted 11-07-2006 7:41 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 291 by arachnophilia, posted 11-07-2006 9:22 AM Silent H has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 290 of 306 (362371)
11-07-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Silent H
11-07-2006 5:52 AM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
quote:
Do you think it is smart to have a sex ed program that either discusses legality from just the US point of view, or one that attempts to understand and discuss sex from the legal standpoint of all the different cultures they'd be taught in?

Considering that I was speaking only of sex ed in the US, I think that discussion of US law, both local and national, wrt sexual behavior is entirely appropriate, regardless of the subcultures that individual students may belong to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 5:52 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 11:04 AM nator has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 291 of 306 (362387)
11-07-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Silent H
11-07-2006 5:52 AM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
I argued that sex ed programs need only focus on physical issues involved with reproduction and protection (from diseases or pregnancy). This would deliver all that is REQUIRED to prevent harm, without adding cultural baggage which would cause people to reject the programs, or involve cultural indoctrination of others.

but the things is that abstinence is a physical issue, and it does prevent std's and babies. there is no reason that it shouldn't one of the issues discussed. just not the only issue.

The programs schraf and brenna recommended involved cultural artifacts that did not make sense and would potentially be counterproductive. You CAN come up with a single program which discusses all of the physical dimensions of sexual activity as they will be the same for everyone everywhere, regardless of moral concepts and laws. One CANNOT come up with a single program that involves both physical and other dimensions of sexual activity.

contrary to some peoples' beliefs, sex is not a purely physical activity.

...it's not so much an issue of what is and what is not precisely legal, but how to avoid questionable situations.

You mean questionable situations such as fornication, or homosexuality?

no, questionable situations like having sex with drunk people. or getting drunk in the wrong atmosphere. that alcohol is a major factor in date-rape is not moralistic call, it is a statistical one. such programs typically talk about on that level -- be careful of who gives you alcohol.

These are against the law in many cultures. Do you think it is smart to have a sex ed program that either discusses legality from just the US point of view, or one that attempts to understand and discuss sex from the legal standpoint of all the different cultures they'd be taught in?

where did you get the impression it was about what is and what is not legal? i specifically said it was not. "rape" has a legal definition, but most sex-ed programs are not about the law, they are about protection.

Indeed I may paraphrase your later statements. Not only does abstinence fail, but so does avoidance of questionable or illegal activity.

yes, and i see no reason not to discuss everything, and give people as much information as possible.

Emotional manipulation (ie "If you love me you'll have sex with me") equated to rape? Sheesh.

when consent is not freely given, it is rape. while that's a relatively weak form of coercion, it is coercion nonetheless.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 5:52 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 12:02 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 296 by Jon, posted 11-07-2006 5:21 PM arachnophilia has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 292 of 306 (362402)
11-07-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by nator
11-07-2006 7:41 AM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
Considering that I was speaking only of sex ed in the US, I think that discussion of US law, both local and national, wrt sexual behavior is entirely appropriate, regardless of the subcultures that individual students may belong to.

First, the discussion involved a description of the "best" kind of program and it certainly did include international programs. If you meant something more limited, then I will accept that.

Given US scope, if homosexual activity was still illegal you would have been for teaching that? Where it is currently illegal to buy or use things like vibrators you are for teaching that? You will teach children exactly what about age appropriate LEGAL sexual activity and questions related to using graphic sexual material?


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by nator, posted 11-07-2006 7:41 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by nator, posted 11-07-2006 12:13 PM Silent H has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 293 of 306 (362413)
11-07-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by arachnophilia
11-07-2006 9:22 AM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
Let me start by saying I am totally uninterested in restarting this long lost thread.

but the things is that abstinence is a physical issue, and it does prevent std's and babies. there is no reason that it shouldn't one of the issues discussed. just not the only issue.

Uh... okay? I did not say abstinence could not be part of the education. I think that stands to reason. Clearly not having sex will mean one does not suffer any physical consequences from sex. It just doesn't require much instruction. In fact there wouldn't even have to be a course.

I do agree that restricting sex ed to just abstinence would be counterproductive. At the very least after people are married they will decide to have sex and the same issues will arise.

contrary to some peoples' beliefs, sex is not a purely physical activity.

? Okay? As far as health effects inherent to sexual acts you can't get mentally pregnant or get a mental disease and spread it.

no, questionable situations like having sex with drunk people. or getting drunk in the wrong atmosphere.

Perhaps I should be more clear. If questionable situations are allowed, why do liberals get to decide which are the ones that get talked about? Some rather large sections of the population would love to talk about lots of situations INCLUDING drinking alcohol.

where did you get the impression it was about what is and what is not legal? i specifically said it was not. "rape" has a legal definition, but most sex-ed programs are not about the law, they are about protection.

See this is exactly why I am uninterested in this. The discussion was about both moral and legal issues. You can see that in schraf's reply above (even if she is saying it should be restricted to US programs/law). You came to question me about my position and pulled quotes that were part of a discussion that is apparently very different than what you want to discuss.

I will state this regarding rape. I don't think a sex ed course should be burdened with all the potential scenarios of how sex might happen. If you want to address that then run a general life safety course, perhaps a self-defense class. The important thing to impart is how to deal with risks inherent to sexual activity.

yes, and i see no reason not to discuss everything, and give people as much information as possible.

Great. That appears to be an opinion. I am not going to fight a pure opinion. I don't agree, and I can give you reasons why, but it really doesn't matter. Clearly sex ed classes can be run in many different ways.

My position is that bringing in legal and cultural issues will take away from the most important issue people NEED to take away from the course, in order to add potentially helpful bits of advice that has the tendency to include cultural/societal bias. I don't see how you will not run into such bias issues. In any case it can get overloaded with side topics and away from the main issue.

But of course "main issue" may be different to you. I am looking at it from a purely health crisis perspective.

when consent is not freely given, it is rape. while that's a relatively weak form of coercion, it is coercion nonetheless.

Having sex with someone because they say "you would if you loved me", is not rape. That's like saying buying something because they said "you would if you loved me", is theft. Or moving to live in another city because they said "you would if you loved me", is kidnapping.

Whoever says such a thing is putting out a conditional and YOU are making the choice. You DO have the power. If you didn't love them you wouldn't. Or should I say if you did have sex with a person you didn't love, just because they said that, then you are an idiot. I mean how much weight could that carry?

Rape requires a lack of choice. In that particular case if one does not want sex, one can say NO.


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by arachnophilia, posted 11-07-2006 9:22 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 294 of 306 (362417)
11-07-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Silent H
11-07-2006 11:04 AM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
quote:
Given US scope, if homosexual activity was still illegal you would have been for teaching that?

Yes, if that was the law.

I don't mean that it should be taught that it is right or wrong, but kids should learn about the laws.

quote:
Where it is currently illegal to buy or use things like vibrators you are for teaching that?

I'm not sure about that, and I can see how it might be problematic.

The kinds of legal issues I had in mind were those involving consent.

quote:
You will teach children exactly what about age appropriate LEGAL sexual activity and questions related to using graphic sexual material?

I'd want to teach them about statutory rape, and sexual assault, and date rape.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 11:04 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Jon, posted 11-07-2006 3:10 PM nator has responded
 Message 297 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 6:25 PM nator has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 306 (362451)
11-07-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by nator
11-07-2006 12:13 PM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
The kinds of legal issues I had in mind were those involving consent.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by nator, posted 11-07-2006 12:13 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by nator, posted 11-08-2006 5:50 PM Jon has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 306 (362472)
11-07-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by arachnophilia
11-07-2006 9:22 AM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
Emotional manipulation (ie "If you love me you'll have sex with me") equated to rape? Sheesh.

when consent is not freely given, it is rape. while that's a relatively weak form of coercion, it is coercion nonetheless.

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.


http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/27.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by arachnophilia, posted 11-07-2006 9:22 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by arachnophilia, posted 11-08-2006 2:27 AM Jon has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 297 of 306 (362488)
11-07-2006 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by nator
11-07-2006 12:13 PM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
The kinds of legal issues I had in mind were those involving consent.

Yeah but once you open the door to "legal issues" why does it get confined to what you want? And as far as consent goes, whose concept of that are you going to use?


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by nator, posted 11-07-2006 12:13 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by nator, posted 11-08-2006 5:57 PM Silent H has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 298 of 306 (362545)
11-08-2006 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Jon
11-07-2006 5:21 PM


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

is this strictly a legal question? i can't find a nice legal definition of coercion for my state (fl) just this second, but rape-prevention organizations tend to include emotional manipulation in their definitions of coercion.

it's relatively weak, compared to the threat of physical violence. but the issue is trying to manipulate a person to give consent, after they have already denied it. and manipulation to obtain consent, consent that is not freely given, tends to constitute to rape. at least, as i understand it.

maybe someone can find some court cases?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Jon, posted 11-07-2006 5:21 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Silent H, posted 11-08-2006 5:27 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 299 of 306 (362559)
11-08-2006 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by arachnophilia
11-08-2006 2:27 AM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
Just some minor points...

rape-prevention organizations tend to include emotional manipulation in their definitions of coercion.

That doesn't legitimate the practice or broad definitions.

the issue is trying to manipulate a person to give consent, after they have already denied it. and manipulation to obtain consent, consent that is not freely given, tends to constitute to rape. at least, as i understand it.

So if a person says they don't want to go on a date with you, and then you buy them some flowers and say "If you liked me you'd give me a chance" that would be kidnapping?

Manipulation in a way that removes the possibility of choice I get. Say for example hinting you'll tell others some secret, or you may not help them get a job. That removes their choice.

A person saying "if you loved me you'd sleep with me" simply reopens a choice. The choice remains their own, even if put in a different perspective. It is one partner telling the other how important sex is for them. It is just as much a manipulation as a person saying "if you loved me you'd wait for sex until marriage". People are setting up what they see as important in the relationship.

Many things in a relationship are negotiations. The idea that sex can't involve negotiation, or that people may not use emotional appeals in such negotiations, is arbitrary and I would say inhuman. Hyperbolic commentary on highly emotional personal issues is human.

Again, how many women use the temptation of sex to get free drinks or meals. That makes them thieves?

Edited by holmes, : u


holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by arachnophilia, posted 11-08-2006 2:27 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 300 of 306 (362684)
11-08-2006 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Jon
11-07-2006 3:10 PM


Re: Spam restarts thread?
quote:
It's no use speaking of consent on a U.S. scale or even international. Laws on consent vary from state to state.

Right, they do.

And you teach the one that is relevant to the location.

quote:
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?

Who says that's the goal?

quote:
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.

Who says I want more abstinence?

I want kinds to have more information so they can make educated choices for themselves.

If they want to abstain or screw like bunnies is up to them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Jon, posted 11-07-2006 3:10 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Jon, posted 11-09-2006 8:37 AM nator has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019