School District approves Middle School X-Rated Sex Education Poster

[gbneely]

Here are the numbers I found on the CDC website:

• In 2011, U.S. state and local child protective services (CPS) received an estimated 3.7 million referrals of children being abused or neglected.1
• CPS estimated that 681,000 children (9.1 per 1,000) were victims of maltreatment.
• Of the child victims, 79% were victims of neglect; 18% of physical abuse; 9% of sexual abuse; and 10% were victims of other types of maltreatment including threatened abuse, parent’s drug/alcohol abuse, or lack of supervision.
• CPS reports of child maltreatment may underestimate the true occurrence. Non-CPS studies estimate that 1 in 7 U.S. children experience some form of child maltreatment in their lifetimes.2-4
• Between 1990 and 2010, CPS-reported rates of sexual violence declined 62%, physical abuse declined 56%, and neglect declined 10%.5
• The total lifetime economic burden resulting from new cases of fatal and nonfatal child maltreatment in the United States is approximately $124 billion.6

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cm-data-sheet--2013.pdf

They do cite other studies with higher reported rates of abuse:

Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth.

Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R, Hamby SL.
Author information
Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA. david.finkelhor@unh.edu

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this research was to obtain national estimates of exposure to the full spectrum of the childhood violence, abuse, and crime victimizations relevant to both clinical practice and public-policy approaches to the problem.

METHODS:
The study was based on a cross-sectional national telephone survey that involved a target sample of 4549 children aged 0 to 17 years.

RESULTS:
A clear majority (60.6%) of the children and youth in this nationally representative sample had experienced at least 1 direct or witnessed victimization in the previous year. Almost half (46.3%) had experienced a physical assault in the study year, 1 in 4 (24.6%) had experienced a property offense, 1 in 10 (10.2%) had experienced a form of child maltreatment, 6.1% had experienced a sexual victimization, and more than 1 in 4 (25.3%) had been a witness to violence or experienced another form of indirect victimization in the year, including 9.8% who had witnessed an intrafamily assault. One in 10 (10.2%) had experienced a victimization-related injury. More than one third (38.7%) had been exposed to 2 or more direct victimizations, 10.9% had 5 or more, and 2.4% had 10 or more during the study year.

CONCLUSIONS:
The scope and diversity of child exposure to victimization is not well recognized. Clinicians and researchers need to inquire about a larger spectrum of victimization types to identify multiply victimized children and tailor prevention and interventions to the full range of threats that children face.

Nowhere do the numbers approach what has been stated in this thread. That aside, I believe children do need to be taught to recognize and report abuse from somewhere other than the home. I also believe any adult who sexually abuses a child should face the death penalty, if convicted.

[UnscreenedCaller]

Good research, gbneely. The stats I was citing were for child sexual abuse, which is handled separately from physical abuse, neglect and maltreatment. I had to take certificate courses in child abuse for my certification, as teachers are legally obliged, if not morally compelled,  to report it. What I saw was unspeakable, and in my years I've had to report.

From the American Psychological Association:

How prevalent is child sexual abuse?
Some CDC research has estimated that approximately 1 in 6 boys and 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before the age of 18.
Other governmental research has estimated that approximately 300,000 children are abused every year in the United States.
However, accurate statistics on the prevalence of sexual abuse of children and adolescents are difficult to collect because it is vastly underreported and there are differing definitions of what constitutes sexual abuse.
Boys (and later, men) tend not to report their victimization, which may affect statistics.
Some men even feel societal pressure to be proud of early sexual activity regardless of whether it was unwanted.
Boys are more likely than girls to be abused outside of the family.
Most mental health and child protection professionals agree that child sexual abuse is not uncommon and is a serious problem in the United States.

[gbneely]

Good research, gbneely. The stats I was citing were for child sexual abuse, which is handled separately from physical abuse, neglect and maltreatment. I had to take certificate courses in child abuse for my certification, as teachers are legally obliged, if not morally compelled,  to report it. What I saw was unspeakable, and in my years I've had to report.

From the American Psychological Association:

Both works I quoted included sexual abuse statistics. I will agree with you that child abuse, sexual and otherwise, is wildly underreported. I don't believe we will ever get real numbers. That's why child victimization is so heinous and, I feel, needs to be dealt with more harshly.

[SciFiAuthor]

There's far too much for me to address piece by piece; So I'll keep it short.

You have no direct experience with children since you were a child. Your view is skewed because you don't have that experience or feedback. You're an elitist in essence, you resent entirely that public money is spent on education unless you can call the shots where it will be spent and how it will be spent. It never occurs that kids do PE or sport, NOT to get them to play football later, but to keep them fit, and lose weight, because lets face it, America doesn't have an obesity problem does it? Do I defend the obscene money that top flight sports (especially football in the UK) people get in wages? No, of course not, they're mercenaries and have no interest but themselves. 

Where's the beef? We've had sports quite prominently in schools for a century. People got fatter--dramatically. They also grew less engaged and mindlessly stare at football games as much as they possibly can, while getting fatter. All western countries are currently getting fatter, the US now surpassed by Australia. Your method does not appear to be working. Even compulsory PE has failed, obviously.

Girls do get raped, the only reason we've heard of it is because it was brushed under the carpet or the girls made to feel it was their fault (because six year old girls can say no, and it will stop, eh?)...Teachers get a crap deal, damned if they do, and damned if they don't..Yet for some inexplicable reason, there isn't a massive rush for non teachers wanting to go into it..wonder why that might be? Well, other than lack of ability, tenacity, ability, patience, ability, stamina, ability, and stuff I've missed, cos I'm not a teacher, and wouldn't even know where to begin to get a class of kids wanting to learn.

Yeah, you've really morphed that one into a fantasy. We somehow went from me wanting to scare kids away from promiscuous sex to some magical denial that rape doesn't happen. You pulled quite the switcheroo. That must mean I said things that you couldn't answer.

[Yorkshire pud]

Where's the beef? We've had sports quite prominently in schools for a century. People got fatter--dramatically. They also grew less engaged and mindlessly stare at football games as much as they possibly can, while getting fatter. All western countries are currently getting fatter, the US now surpassed by Australia. Your method does not appear to be working. Even compulsory PE has failed, obviously.


Yeah, you've really morphed that one into a fantasy. We somehow went from me wanting to scare kids away from promiscuous sex to some magical denial that rape doesn't happen. You pulled quite the switcheroo. That must mean I said things that you couldn't answer.

Oh yeah..I'm sure you're right. I get all mixed up with verbs, adjectives, nouns, composition and context.. You've made your mind up based on very little direct experience with children as an adult, whereas I haven't. But I'll let you ride this one. Just please don't go into teaching or sexual health related to educating young people, okay? Just wait outside the school gates with a big stick and a mask on and batter them into coming around to your way of thinking..that'll work. Probably.

[SciFiAuthor]

As I posted, it is higher for girls. The vast majority of child sexual abuse goes unreported.

I don't contest that at all. All I contest is its prevalence today vs. a century ago. I know the world became a craphole, the only difference is that I won't make excuses for it.

The classroom is exactly the place for that, under the classroom teacher's controlled moderation.

Sounds like a good old fashioned shame airing. I would not support such a thing unless the moderator and all participants were trained psychologists.

If a child is abused by a beloved brother, do you think she's going to tell her mother? She's been shamed and threatened not to. Most parents are unaware of lures that predators use, or even the signs of abuse in their own children. Where do children learn to recognize and deal with this? If you think in the home, you are very sadly mistaken, and that's why I am obligated under law to report all signs of physical and sexual abuse? Or perhaps you are unaware of confidentiality laws that protect children's privacy and would preclude someone's discussion of her abuse in the classroom?  Or that only someone not in her right mind would ever 'out' a gay kid for discussion purposes? I don't know where you get your 'information', but it has no basis in actuality reality.

I'm not a teacher, you were the one saying that the classroom is the place to discuss it. Then you flip flopped. Well, let's clear the air, exactly what are you suggesting we do? Talk about it or not? I've got no problem with, actually I encourage, reporting abuse. But that's a separate issue.

Yes, I've read this before. We're all saints when we're taking a bullet for someone else's kid. Other than that, we have too much time on our hands and would be better put to use elsewhere, perhaps educating smart children who 'deserve' education, like yourself. Screw the kids who needs help.

I'm all for helping the kids, but that wasn't what I said. That's an overly emotive response to what I said. Don't take me that seriously, take me on a factual basis. Someone better hope we stop punishing achievement and intelligence for the sake of the unachiever's self-esteem or none of us will have a very nice world. I'm working with a 19 year-old science fiction author right now that's writing some amazing stuff, conceptually speaking, things that I would have never thought of. I'm fairly certain he'll get published if he continues to work on his writing. He was not recognized in school, and in fact discouraged because the teacher apparently didn't "get" sci fi. Had the kid not approached me at a book signing, he'd have given up and slipped through the cracks. But, as he often jokes, half his class couldn't (or wouldn't) conjugate verbs correctly and they all passed.

You don't need to read Chaucer to flip a burger, do you? Of course you do need at least an 8th grade reading level to operate Naval automatic test equipment for fighter jets, so there's that, but to take a bullet for the cause, no. In case you're wondering, I don't take my particular orders from the NEA.

No, you don't need Chaucer to flip a burger. I'm not sure what anyone outside of a university uses a working knowledge of middle English for these days. But, don't worry, they'll pull Chaucer from the curriculum soon enough. Someone will complain about its flagrantly Christian basis and that will be the end of it. They'll replace it with "On the Road" or some other such "Culturally Important" piece. Now, if the school system were made immune from the politically correct whims of society . . .

I take my marching orders from my state curriuclum which had educational goals in place for every grade.

Oh the NEA isn't going to like you the next time a strike happens.

I also have tremendous freedom to bring in reading materials and I do. OMG, I even read "Leo the Late Bloomer", a story about a young one who struggles and finally gets there. Now one might say - ah, typical correct literature - no competition, but afterwards an undiagnosed autistic child threw his arms around me and made eye contact for the first time in 7 months. He deserved an education, too.

I don't mind that autistic children would get recognized and educated according to their needs. Obviously someone missed that one, and therein lies the problem.

So what you are in essence saying is that only the best and brightest (like yourself) need be educated. That every other child who is not as gifted, or who struggling academically or just can't catch on should be left out of the educational process because of the cost/ratio and expected rate of return? I call that cold and at odds with the ideal of democracy in action that  public education was meant to be. Kids deserve better than to be callously written off as though their intrinsic worth and their IQs were somehow, intertwined.

No, I'm saying the best and brightest should be encouraged like everyone else. But the focus is no longer on the best and brightest, rather it's on the lowest rung and it's all done in the same building. Achievement is punished, very effectively often leading that person with a 145 IQ to never realize their potential, while the low IQ leaves school thinking that life allows him to skate by when it doesn't.

Again, if all of this stuff were working after graduation I'd be fine with it. It doesn't seem to be. 

[onan]

I don't usually wade too deeply into this subject. But there is so much misinformation in SciFi's posts it is mind boggling. Well I didn't read all of it. I kind of thought he was bonkers when he suggested lying was a good course of action.

The fact is the more knowledge one has, the higher the chance better decisions will be made.

[wr250]

I don't usually wade too deeply into this subject. But there is so much misinformation in SciFi's posts it is mind boggling. Well I didn't read all of it. I kind of thought he was bonkers when he suggested lying was a good course of action.

The fact is the more knowledge one has, the higher the chance better decisions will be made.

and then there are those that believe in the following:
violence, if it isnt working you are not using enough of it.

i have 1st hand experience in this matter, in several ways. and i do not believe in violence,  other than self defense.

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't usually wade too deeply into this subject. But there is so much misinformation in SciFi's posts it is mind boggling. Well I didn't read all of it. I kind of thought he was bonkers when he suggested lying was a good course of action.

The fact is the more knowledge one has, the higher the chance better decisions will be made.

I love you Onan. You are the most pseudo-intellectual person I've ever interacted with, so much that you'll even go so far as to condemn my post and then admit you didn't read it as though such a thing is even remotely not bonkers. You just can't make stuff like that up. <chuckles>

Now run along back to your Noory trashing. I'm rather disappointed about that, actually. The voluptuous finely manicured and grecian formula colored moustache really fell off that thread. It's been really tame lately and I've been relegated to posting in the politics forum. What the hell is wrong with you guys? The fire go out?

[UnscreenedCaller]

I don't contest that at all. All I contest is its prevalence today vs. a century ago. I know the world became a craphole, the only difference is that I won't make excuses for it.

It's reported now even at low rates. It has nothing to do with the sexualization of our society and everything to do with other, more complex psychological issues. Believe it or not, the Good Old Days really weren't that good.

Sounds like a good old fashioned shame airing. I would not support such a thing unless the moderator and all participants were trained psychologists.

What in the name of sanity are you talking about? Who said anything about shame, except for you? I teach children how to avoid becoming the  victims of sexual predators. I have undergone professional training to do so. If you find shame in that, it's not the hypothetical classroom in need of a psychologist.

I'm not a teacher, you were the one saying that the classroom is the place to discuss it. Then you flip flopped. Well, let's clear the air, exactly what are you suggesting we do? Talk about it or not? I've got no problem with, actually I encourage, reporting abuse. But that's a separate issue.

Where did I flip flop? Do you understand the difference between a lesson given  in front of a class with participation and a child confiding abuse privately? No child would ever be encouraged to do something like discuss sexual abuse in front of the class. It violates all rules of confidentiality and privacy.

I'm all for helping the kids, but that wasn't what I said. That's an overly emotive response to what I said. Don't take me that seriously, take me on a factual basis. Someone better hope we stop punishing achievement and intelligence for the sake of the unachiever's self-esteem or none of us will have a very nice world. I'm working with a 19 year-old science fiction author right now that's writing some amazing stuff, conceptually speaking, things that I would have never thought of. I'm fairly certainly he'll get published if he continues to work on his writing. He was not recognized in school, and in fact discouraged because the teacher apparently didn't "get" sci fi. Had the kid not approached me at a book signing, he'd have given up and slipped through the cracks. But, as he often jokes, half his class couldn't (or wouldn't) conjugate verbs correctly and they all passed.

No, you don't need Chaucer to flip a burger. I'm not sure what anyone outside of a university uses a working knowledge of middle English for these days. But, don't worry, they'll pull Chaucer from the curriculum soon enough. Someone will complain about its flagrantly Christian basis and that will be the end of it. They'll replace it with "On the Road" or some other such "Culturally Important" piece. Now, if the school system were made immune from the politically correct whims of society . . .

I don't mind that autistic children would get recognized and educated according to their needs. Obviously someone missed that one, and therein lies the problem.

Big of you. The problem is not that someone missed one. My student, and I didn't. The problem lies with poorly educated parents and denial.

No one's pulling Chaucer out of the curriculum, not James Joyce, nor Francis Thompson. How funny that you refer to "On the Road", since the Beat Generation is a legitimate subject for study undergraduate and graduate level. When I took my GRE's, I aced the advanced English because I'd been reading the beats for years. Not patting myself on the back, being widely read is the goal of a good education. Open you mind. There's a big wide world out there.

And please, drop the 'overly emotive' bullshit. I find that dismissive and insulting.

No, I'm saying the best and brightest should be encouraged like everyone else. But the focus is no longer on the best and brightest, rather it's on the lowest rung and it's all done in the same building. Achievement is punished, very effectively often leading that person with a 145 IQ to never realize their potential, while the low IQ leaves school thinking that life allows him to skate by when it doesn't.

Again, if all of this stuff were working after graduation I'd be fine with it. It doesn't seem to be.

Again, that's a sweeping generalization, based upon your own personal experience. It doesn't take into account programs for gifted and talented students which are in place in very many schools, public and private. My school has one, the district has several, and there are several high schools for talented children. And then again, the world has seen many a person with an 145 IQ who didn't achieve personal goals, the world didn't bow down to their sweeping intellect and are now bitter. Sucks to be them, but don't blame the school. There is such a thing as personal initiative.

[onan]

I love you Onan. You are the most pseudo-intellectual person I've ever interacted with, so much that you'll even go so far as to condemn my post and then admit you didn't read it as though such a thing is even remotely not bonkers. You just can't make stuff like that up. <chuckles>

Now run along back to your Noory trashing. I'm rather disappointed about that, actually. The voluptuous finely manicured and grecian formula colored moustache really fell off that thread. It's been really tame lately and I've been relegated to posting in the politics forum. What the hell is wrong with you guys? The fire go out?

I read enough to realize you were making shit up.

[SciFiAuthor]

It's reported now even at low rates. It has nothing to do with the sexualization of our society and everything to do with other, more complex psychological issues. Believe it or not, the Good Old Days really weren't that good.

Yeah, that just smacks of someone rationalizing a problem away. Why is it a taboo to you guys to suggest that the sexualization of society may be responsible for rising rates of abuse? We live in a world where a guy dresses up as the joker, goes into a movie theater and shoots the place up joker style, but we won't acknowledge that a film might just have contributed to the incident. Sure, underlying problems are at the heart of it, but as with any medical condition you can exacerbate the condition. Society is exacerbating this stuff, and we're lying to ourselves just to give an irresponsible pop culture a pass. I don't get it, why don't we all just talk truthfully about this stuff?

What in the name of sanity are you talking about? Who said anything about shame, except for you? I teach children how to avoid becoming the  victims of sexual predators. I have undergone professional training to do so. If you find shame in that, it's not the hypothetical classroom in need of a psychologist.

I suspect you misread my statement.

Where did I flip flop? Do you understand the difference between a lesson given  in front of a class with participation and a child confiding abuse privately? No child would ever be encouraged to do something like discuss sexual abuse in front of the class. It violates all rules of confidentiality and privacy.

You said the classroom was exactly the place for this, and now you're saying it's not. You seem all over the board to me.

Big of you. The problem is not that someone missed one. My student, and I didn't. The problem lies with poorly educated parents and denial.

Which educational system educated the parents?

No one's pulling Chaucer out of the curriculum, not James Joyce, nor Francis Thompson. How funny that you refer to "On the Road", since the Beat Generation is a legitimate subject for study undergraduate and graduate level.

They'll axe Chaucer before it's over. It's simply too Christian to be left alone. They got Twain already in many places for the racism, Francis Thompson is destined to be replaced with Hunter Thompson, and I certainly don't remember James Joyce in the curriculum when I was in school. Good on 'em if he's there, but we were too busy with Maya Angelou and Edna St. Vincent Millay. I also remember William Least Heat-Moon in there--yeah, there's a titan of contemporary literature. <g>

I'd leave the beat generation until college. It's a terrible influence. There wasn't one decent human being among them. One youtube video of Jack Kerouac will show you why. Pick any one of them you like, though I would recommend his panel interview with William F. Buckley. It's a classic of public drunkenness put on display. The truth about the beats is that they were a bunch of drug addicts and alcoholics out to take society down to its roots. "Howl" would be an incomprehensible and poorly-written poem relegated to the storage trunk of society if it weren't for a core group of liberal supporters that managed to convince everyone that it was fashionable to like and eventually morphed into being important. I dream of a day where we also include Kerouac's return to Catholicism and dismay over his own crowd's social views just before he drank himself to death. It was an interesting end to his story. But of course, we don't, preferring instead to preserve his cool beat image. At the end of the day "On the Road" ultimately is a fine way to glorify and promote alcohol and drug abuse. How that's desirable reading for kids, I'll never know. Well, actually, I do know, a few doctorates somewhere decided to foist its message on us in order to have an effect on society.

When I took my GRE's, I aced the advanced English because I'd been reading the beats for years. Not patting myself on the back, being widely read is the goal of a good education. Open you mind. There's a big wide world out there.

I'm a professional author, of course I'm well-read. You see, the funny thing here is that I'm not the one rigidly clinging to a dogma. I'm the one tossing out alternative ideas on solving a problem that most people won't admit the actual causes of. So when you say open your mind, I say hold up a mirror.

And please, drop the 'overly emotive' bullshit. I find that dismissive and insulting.

That's what it was. It wasn't an address to the specifics of what I said, but rather a lash out.

Again, that's a sweeping generalization, based upon your own personal experience. It doesn't take into account programs for gifted and talented students which are in place in very many schools, public and private. My school has one, the district has several, and there are several high schools for talented children. And then again, the world has seen many a person with an 145 IQ who didn't achieve personal goals, the world didn't bow down to their sweeping intellect and are now bitter. Sucks to be them, but don't blame the school. There is such a thing as personal initiative.

The very fact that you'll make an attack like bowing down to their sweeping intellect illustrates my point nicely about the bias against the smart kids. I sincerely hope your gifted student programs work out well, and I mean that. But in my day, they took the form of college credit classes. I'll never forget being a senior and taking advanced world history. It was basically a joke where the teacher had 17-18 year old students making Greek temples out of paper and glue. I knew then that it was simply intended to give the dumb kids an easy credit for community college. I hope things are done better today, but from what I'm told, it's about as bad. 

[SciFiAuthor]

I read enough to realize you were making shit up.

Oh? Take me point to point then. Yeah, I know, I know, you'll come up with some bullshit about being too busy or whatever as usual.

[UnscreenedCaller]

Yeah, that just smacks of someone rationalizing a problem away. Why is it a taboo to you guys to suggest that the sexualization of society may be responsible for rising rates of abuse? We live in a world where a guy dresses up as the joker, goes into a movie theater and shoots the place up joker style, but we won't acknowledge that a film might just have contributed to the incident. Sure, underlying problems are at the heart of it, but as with any medical condition you can exacerbate the condition. Society is exacerbating this stuff, and we're lying to ourselves just to give an irresponsible pop culture a pass. I don't get it, why don't we all just talk truthfully about this stuff?

As you are well aware, we live in complicated times, but my discussion with you is in the narrower focus of sex ed in the classroom which evolved into sexual abuse statistics. I believe you think this is a problem exacerbated by modern culture. I disagree. I think we hear more now about what was spoken of in hushed tones one hundred years ago, but the root psychological causes of child sexual abuse remain the same, even though, and I will grant you this, we as a society sexualize our little girls i.e the Jon Benet Ramsay syndrome. To a molester's mind, permissive society or not, the child is already sexualized as an object be it 2002, 1955 or 1895.

I suspect you misread my statement.

I don't think so. You are implying that a child will be made to discuss sexual abuse or his/her sexual orientation in front of a class as part of sex ed. This is simply not so. The use of the word 'shame' concerns me, though, as no shame should ever be attached to being the victim of sexual abuse, nor to one's sexuality. What children need to know is that there are adults who genuinely care about them and will listen to and believe them, and safe places for them.

You said the classroom was exactly the place for this, and now you're saying it's not. You seem all over the board to me.

You're being deliberately obtuse. If you are trying to trip me up by getting me to say a child should be encouraged to discuss traumatic personal issues in front of her peers, good luck with that. But that's not what I said. I'll rephrase it for the third time: a classroom sex ed or child abuse prevention program is designed to be a safe place where issues like these can be presented, questions asked and discussions engaged. Nowhere does that imply anything else. But, if in the course of a lesson on child abuse or homosexuality, a child needs something further in the way of guidance, those needs are taken care of privately, not in front of the class. One is a setting, the other is a possible outgrowth of a lesson.

Which educational system educated the parents?

The parents are immigrants from Latin America

They'll axe Chaucer before it's over. It's simply too Christian to be left alone. They got Twain already in many places for the racism, Francis Thompson is destined to be replaced with Hunter Thompson, and I certainly don't remember James Joyce in the curriculum when I was in school. Good on 'em if he's there, but we were too busy with Maya Angelou and Edna St. Vincent Millay. I also remember William Least Heat-Moon in there--yeah, there's a titan of contemporary literature. <g>

Pity you don't like Angelou and Millay. I do. I also like a lot of other poets like Wallace Stevens or Wilfred Owen whom I read on my own. I doubt very, very much Chaucer is going anywhere anytime soon. I'm more concerned with parents who think Harry Potter promotes witchcraft and want to remove the series because they're 'good Christians'.

I'd leave the beat generation until college. It's a terrible influence. There wasn't one decent human being among them. One youtube video of Jack Kerouac will show you why. Pick any one of them you like, though I would recommend his panel interview with William F. Buckley. It's a classic of public drunkenness put on display. The truth about the beats is that they were a bunch of drug addicts and alcoholics out to take society down to its roots. "Howl" would be an incomprehensible and poorly-written poem relegated to the storage trunk of society if it weren't for a core group of liberal supporters that managed to convince everyone that it was fashionable to like and eventually morphed into being important. I dream of a day where we also include Kerouac's return to Catholicism and dismay over his own crowd's social views just before he drank himself to death. It was an interesting end to his story. But of course, we don't, preferring instead to preserve his cool beat image. At the end of the day "On the Road" ultimately is a fine way to glorify and promote alcohol and drug abuse. How that's desirable reading for kids, I'll never know. Well, actually, I do know, a few doctorates somewhere decided to foist its message on us in order to have an effect on society.

Well, no one foisted those books on me, as a matter of fact. I found and read them all on my lonely at the local branch of the library at around 15 or so. One book led to another and I found poets and authors I enjoyed a great deal. Of course, maybe it would turn someone off to read about an author's private life, but I don't really care about that. It's the work that counts, no? And I'm sorry you don't enjoy 'Howl'. I still have my original copy, in place of honor on my poetry shelf which includes a very diverse group across centuries, including Dylan Thomas who also died of the drink. So what? One man's meat ...

I'm a professional author, of course I'm well-read. You see, the funny thing here is that I'm not the one rigidly clinging to a dogma. I'm the one tossing out alternative ideas on solving a problem that most people won't admit the actual causes of. So when you say open your mind, I say hold up a mirror.

Yes, I've heard several times you are a professional author. But you see, I think the problem is that it's very important to you that your alternative ideas on solving a problem are taken seriously even when they are hogwash. But I also used to think anyone could stand in front of a classroom and teach before I learned a little humility and got some first hand experience. Many years later, I'm still learning how to be an effective teacher, but it's not by throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing if it sticks.

The very fact that you'll make an attack like bowing down to their sweeping intellect illustrates my point nicely about the bias against the smart kids. I sincerely hope your gifted student programs work out well, and I mean that. But in my day, they took the form of college credit classes. I'll never forget being a senior and taking advanced world history. It was basically a joke where the teacher had 17-18 year old students making Greek temples out of paper and glue. I knew then that it was simply intended to give the dumb kids an easy credit for community college. I hope things are done better today, but from what I'm told, it's about as bad.

I have nothing against smart kids, why would you say a thing like that? I delight in them, as a matter of fact, and encourage their natural curiosity. They are a joy to teach and more often than not make my day, but they are part of a wider classroom which has differentiated needs. Children who are less gifted academically or downright slow are equally worthy of attention and care. I get a little tired of teachers being the scapegoats for everyone's academic disillusionment, particularly when they're well out of school. What went with the paper Greek temples? Did you have to do research? Did you present results? Did you have to use mathematical models the Greeks would have used to make those paper temples, i.e. the golden ratio? Did you read "Daily Life in Ancient Greece" or any of Aristophanes plays? It sounds sketchy to me that an entire honors class was devoted to making paper temples. Either that or you had a singularly uncreative instructor who never had a classroom observation by his chairman. So why did no one or any parents go the departmental head and complain? I took AP English - we read and went to plays and had a ball.

[SciFiAuthor]

As you are well aware, we live in complicated times, but my discussion with you is in the narrower focus of sex ed in the classroom which evolved into sexual abuse statistics. I believe you think this is a problem exacerbated by modern culture. I disagree. I think we hear more now about what was spoken of in hushed tones one hundred years ago, but the root psychological causes of child sexual abuse remain the same, even though, and I will grant you this, we as a society sexualize our little girls i.e the Jon Benet Ramsay syndrome. To a molester's mind, permissive society or not, the child is already sexualized as an object be it 2002, 1955 or 1895.

Yes, but he Jon Benet Ramsay thing is entirely a modern phenomenon. That's just tossing it out there for a sex abuser to go nuts with. We didn't do that in 1895. The more you feed the molester, the more likely he is to act.

I don't think so. You are implying that a child will be made to discuss sexual abuse or his/her sexual orientation in front of a class as part of sex ed. This is simply not so. The use of the word 'shame' concerns me, though, as no shame should ever be attached to being the victim of sexual abuse, nor to one's sexuality. What children need to know is that there are adults who genuinely care about them and will listen to and believe them, and safe places for them.

I never said that, another poster implied that I did. I said that if sex were shameful, as it used to be, there'd be less of it. Teen pregnancy numbers bear that out. It worked. Our current system does not appear to be working at all, rather it's providing us a world that resembles a Jerry Springer show. Well, if you can't fix it one way, it would only be prudent to examine ways that once did seem to work. We've made it a taboo to do that, and it's socially foolish.

You're being deliberately obtuse. If you are trying to trip me up by getting me to say a child should be encouraged to discuss traumatic personal issues in front of her peers, good luck with that. But that's not what I said.
I'll rephrase it for the third time: a classroom sex ed or child abuse prevention program is designed to be a safe place where issues like these can be presented, questions asked and discussions engaged. Nowhere does that imply anything else. But, if in the course of a lesson on child abuse or homosexuality, a child needs something further in the way of guidance, those needs are taken care of privately, not in front of the class. One is a setting, the other is a possible outgrowth of a lesson.
The parents are immigrants from Latin America

I don't think you have any prayer of credibly talking to a homosexual teen male in any relevant manner unless you've been to the gay bars and into the scene and are well-versed in such things as glory holes. In this modern age, by the time he's 16 he's seen more porn than Ron Jeremy and is very likely to know more than the teacher, as sad as that is.

You might be able to get some kids to open up about abuse, but it seems to me you could also rip open a wound too early and make a kid feel isolated and embarrassed that you're broaching a subject most sensitive to them. I remain unconvinced of the wisdom of it.

Pity you don't like Angelou and Millay. I do. I also like a lot of other poets like Wallace Stevens or Wilfred Owen whom I read on my own. I doubt very, very much Chaucer is going anywhere anytime soon. I'm more concerned with parents who think Harry Potter promotes witchcraft and want to remove the series because they're 'good Christians'.

Angelou and Millay came across as people with chips on their shoulders promoting a message that was more socio-political than artistic. I consider it unethical to try to form a kid's political opinion before adulthood, thus I don't support their inclusion in the curriculum before the college level. That said, political poetry certainly has its place and I don't necessarily dislike or disagree with them, I disagree with their placement in the curriculum.

Now, Harry Potter I agree on. They are benign and wonderful books and any kid should read them and see the movies. Hell, I was in my 30's when I read them, and still enjoyed them all. But I'd just as surely debate the religious nut that wants them banned as I do anything else I disagree with.

Well, no one foisted those books on me, as a matter of fact. I found and read them all on my lonely at the local branch of the library at around 15 or so. One book led to another and I found poets and authors I enjoyed a great deal. Of course, maybe it would turn someone off to read about an author's private life, but I don't really care about that. It's the work that counts, no? And I'm sorry you don't enjoy 'Howl'. I still have my original copy, in place of honor on my poetry shelf which includes a very diverse group across centuries, including Dylan Thomas who also died of the drink. So what? One man's meat ...

They foisted the wrong books on me. It was largely just left-leaning stuff designed to make me a politically correct upstanding Gen-Xer. There were a few good ones, of course, Corrie Ten Boom tore my heart out and Tolkien raised me to heights that I can't really express even today, but the vast majority was strange material designed really to form leftwing thought.

You must understand an author's private life in order to understand their books. They put themselves in there, sometimes disconcertingly so, and if you really want to know why they say the things they do then you must understand who they are/were. But society doesn't really do that, instead it prefers an idealized view of an author. Having known a few of the big ones, I don't know if that's such a good idea.

Yes, I've heard several times you are a professional author. But you see, I think the problem is that it's very important to you that your alternative ideas on solving a problem are taken seriously even when they are hogwash. But I also used to think anyone could stand in front of a classroom and teach before I learned a little humility and got some first hand experience. Many years later, I'm still learning how to be an effective teacher, but it's not by throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing if it sticks.

I'm here saying what I do because our methodology does not appear to be working at present. It's that simple really. The proof abounds. Can you tell me that the world is a nice place for the kids once they graduate? Well, we built it that way. So you tell me which is hogwash, the person defending something that flagrantly isn't working, or the person tossing out other ideas? It's just the old fight between the establishment and the Voltaires of the world.

I have nothing against smart kids, why would you say a thing like that?

I already said that. You showed a bias towards them.

I delight in them, as a matter of fact, and encourage their natural curiosity. They are a joy to teach and more often than not make my day, but they are part of a wider classroom which has differentiated needs. Children who are less gifted academically or downright slow are equally worthy of attention and care. I get a little tired of teachers being the scapegoats for everyone's academic disillusionment, particularly when they're well out of school.

They really shouldn't be in the same class room.

What went with the paper Greek temples? Did you have to do research? Did you present results? Did you have to use mathematical models the Greeks would have used to make those paper temples, i.e. the golden ratio?

It was 20 years ago, but I doubt there was any talk of mathematical models. It was simply dumbed down to give the idiots a head start in community college in so far as I could tell. It would not hold up to university standards. To be fair, I didn't make it far in the class before I stormed out in protest and went to the principal's office. The same class in college certainly wasn't like that.

Did you read "Daily Life in Ancient Greece" or any of Aristophanes plays? It sounds sketchy to me that an entire honors class was devoted to making paper temples. Either that or you had a singularly uncreative instructor who never had a classroom observation by his chairman. So why did no one or any parents go the departmental head and complain? I took AP English - we read and went to plays and had a ball.

I'd say the instructor was probably partly at fault, but also the administration which likely just wanted to pass kids and maintain their ratings or some such. I would imagine my counselor might have complained, he was in my corner, and he did say that "teachers are like little kings and can teach as they like" but as I said I bailed on the class as quickly as I could get out of there.

[UnscreenedCaller]

Yes, but he Jon Benet Ramsay thing is entirely a modern phenomenon. That's just tossing it out there for a sex abuser to go nuts with. We didn't do that in 1895. The more you feed the molester, the more likely he is to act.

That really depends on what you term 'modern'. Historically, prostitution has included young girls, unfortunately. However, sexual abusers are not a monolithic group by any means. There are opportunistic abusers who will use an available child to satisfy a sexual need, pedophiles who are sexually attracted to young children and are the 'classic' molesters and pedarasts who are sexually attracted to older children. These may be modern clinical terms, but the underlying sexual pathology is not something uniquely modern.

I never said that, another poster implied that I did. I said that if sex were shamefull, as it used to be, there'd be less of it. Teen pregnancy numbers bear that out. It worked. Our current system does not appear to be working at all, rather it's providing us a world that resembles a Jerry Springer show . Well, if you can't fix it one way, it would only be prudent to examine ways that once did seem to work. We've made it a taboo to do that, and it's socially foolish

Be very, very careful careful about using shame for sex. The problem with shaming is its overreach: shame about bodies, women shamed for being raped or abused, children shamed for curiosity. Shame isn't healthy.

I don't think you have any prayer of credibly talking to a homosexual teen male in any relevant manner unless you've been to the gay bars and into the scene and are well-versed in such things as glory holes. In this modern age, by the time he's 16 he's seen more porn than Ron Jeremy and is very likely to know more than the teacher, as sad as that is.

Not only do I talk to gay and lesbian children, I have gay and lesbian relatives and friends, and have actually been to gay bars with friends, and I know what a glory hole is. So what? I can't tell you how many times I've been the trial balloon for someone's coming out to his family, how many times I've worn purple on Spirit day so LGBT kids know I'm in their corner. I know who Ron Jeremy is and, believe it or not,  pornography doesn't make me clutch my pearls and have the vapors, gay or straight. I also know rejected and abandoned LGBT kids account for a disproportionate part of the homeless populace, that they are forced into prostitution by predatory pimps and that bullied LGBT kids have a higher risk of suicide. Those are important issues, not whether a horny gay kid watches porn, unless it's taking the place of social interaction.

You might be able to get some kids to open up about abuse, but seems to me you could also rip open a wound too early and make a kid feel isolated and embarrassed that you're broaching a subject most sensitive to them. I remain unconvinced of the wisdom of it.

Why would anyone feel that way about a curriculum topic? No one is 'getting' any child to open up about abuse. This is disseminating information to either prevent abuse or let an abused child know there is help available? A kid who can't go to her parents for whatever reason is in emotional and perhaps physical trauma. It's vital to get her help to stop the abuser and abuse.

Angelou and Millay came as people with chips on their shoulders promoting a message that was more socio-political than artistic. I consider it unethical to try to form a kid's political opinion before adulthood, thus I don't support their inclusion in the curriculum before the college level. That said, political poetry certainly has its place and I don't necessarily dislike or disagree with them, I disagree with their placement in the curriculum.

I suppose I should have waited until adulthood to read The Banality of Evil or Invisible Man or even The Scarlett Letter, given my impressionable young mind, but our English teacher thought we were mature enough to handle these books and their subjects. We were, and I'm grateful to him for not assigning insultingly easy lit. I don't know if Richard Ellison had a chip on his shoulder, but I'm glad I read his novel. It expanded my understanding of another culture.

Now, Harry Potter I agree on. They are benign and wonderful books and any kid should read them and see the movies. Hell, I was in my 30's when I read them, and still enjoyed them all. But I'd just as surely debate the religious nut that wants them banned as I do anything else I disagree with.

Finally, something we can agree on!

They foisted the wrong books on me. It was largely just left-leaning stuff designed to make me a politically correct upstanding Gen-Xer. There were a few good ones, of course, Corrie Ten Boom tore my heart out and Tolkien raised me to heights that I can't really express even today, but the vast majority was strange material designed really to form leftwing thought.

You might want to read The Last of the Just after Ten Boom, but beware. It will stay with you forever. I, too, share your admiration for Tolkien. There are a lot of excellent books that go into great depth on his christian/pagan themes and the underlying theme that the word is creation. Other than that, literature survey classes are like pellet shots: not everything is going to stick, and those that do you will remember. It's not tailored to your personal taste.

You must understand an author's private life in order to understand their books. They put themselves in there, sometimes disconcertingly so, and if you really want to know why they say the things they do then you must understand who they are/were. But society doesn't really do that, instead it prefers an idealized view of an author. Having known a few of the big ones, I don't know if that's such a good idea.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. TS Elliot was a jerk, but I love his poetry. His private life doesn't matter to, except as a footnote, which is how I feel about Kerouac. On the other hand, there are a few children's authors I've met and who are very nice people. But that has no effect on my enjoyment of their work.

I'm here saying what I do because our methodology does not appear to be working at present. It's that simple really. The proof abounds. Can you tell me that the world is a nice place for the kids once they graduate? Well, we built it that way. So you tell me which is hogwash, the person defending something that flagrantly isn't working, or the person tossing out other ideas? It's just the old fight between the establishment and the Voltaires of the world.

I take it  you're the Voltaire here. Well, what ideas are you throwing out? I've heard how we go back to making sex shameful, and how we should scare the shit out of kids, but there is nothing new or intrinsically worthwhile or even useful in either. The world wasn't especially a nice place when I graduated, or for that matter, when my mother did. It never is, that's nostalgia for times that never were.

I already said that. You showed a bias towards them.

Absolutely not true. I care about all my students without regard for their abilities. However, my approach to them differs.

They really shouln't be in the same class room.

That's elitist. Are you prepared to sequester yourself from all walks of life and all manners of people based on IQ? Who will fix your car, or serve you coffee or even pick up the garbage? People are more than Stanford-Binet scores which are all very nice but hardly a prognostication for a happy, successful or satisfying life.

It was 20 years ago, but I doubt there was any talk of mathematical models. It was simply dumbed down to give the idiots a head start in community college in so far as I could tell. It would not hold up to university standards. To be fair, I didn't make it far in the class before I stormed out in protest and went to the principal's office. The same class in college certainly wasn't like that.

I'd say the instructor was probably partly at fault, but also the administration which likely just wanted to pass kids and maintain their ratings or some such. I would imagine my counselor might have complained, he was in my corner, and he did say that "teachers are like little kings and can teach as they like" but as I said I bailed on the class as quickly as I could get out of there.

I get the impression if something doesn't meet your expectations, you're outta there without giving it a chance. Why didn't you stay and try to be a force for change?

[SciFiAuthor]

That really depends on what you term 'modern'. Historically, prostitution has included young girls, unfortunately. However, sexual abusers are not a monolithic group by any means. There are opportunistic abusers who will use an available child to satisfy a sexual need, pedophiles who are sexually attracted to young children and are the 'classic' molesters and pedarasts who are sexually attracted to older children. These may be modern clinical terms, but the underlying sexual pathology is not modern,
mrnography

Oh you can go back and find all sorts of horrific things in history, however I'm speaking within living memory. The Victorian age and it's attitudes towards sex, while not perfect, was a first step in trying to create a social order that wasn't conducive to either prostitution or promiscuous sex, in part that was a response to the excesses of France of the period leading up the 1850's. That order was functioning and tweaked in the 1950's, which plenty of people remember. It wasn't perfect, but when we threw out that social order with the 1960's sexual liberation movement, we made the problem infinitely worse. There are plenty of stats that show it, but even common sense suffices. We do not need to run and hide behind the "It was all kept secret back then" argument, because we can still see societies extant today that exhibit the same social controls and they frankly do not have the pregnancy rates that we do. These problems do not exist in any real numbers in the Islamic world. They've got their own problems, and I don't advocate their methods, but it proves the point.

In the case of the molesters, we seem to just egg them on and provide an increasing amount of stimulus for them and thusly the shit's rampant. Not that we really do much against it, a few years in prison and then to the sex offender list seems tame to me. Of course my solution is to lock them up and throw away the key.

Be very, very careful careful about using shame for sex. The problem with shaming is its overreach: shame about bodies, women shamed for being raped or abused, children shamed for curiosity. Shame isn't healthy.
Be very, very careful careful about using shame for sex. The problem with shaming is its overreach: shame about bodies, women shamed for being raped or abused, children shamed for curiosity. Shame isn't healthy.

Oh we use shame all the time in society. The left tried to shame us out of Iraq, for instance. Or it uses shame as a position against Israel. Shame is everywhere. How it's applied is simply a matter of politics. And since our method of accepting sex hasn't worked, I don't see any other options but I do see a brick wall coming with it. We can't all be on welfare.

George Orwell, incidentally, knew that even a society that had thrown off all standard religion would face collapse through sexual promiscuity. Remember the scarlet sash of the anti-sex movement from 1984? That was in there because of Malthus. Eventually there comes a time where someone somewhere decides the Earth is overpopulating. Some are already saying that. Since you can't make a law that restricts sex in our society, you make a movement for it. The first place that movement will manifest is in the schools, so you'll see a day where the state itself says to shame kids about it. I'm simply ahead of the game on the issue. Or behind it. Sexual liberation is an anomaly, and I say that with great pain as I rather enjoy sex and do it as often as I can.

Not only do I talk to gay and lesbian children, I have gay and lesbian relatives and friends, and have actually been to gay bars with friends, and I know what a glory hole is. So what? I can't tell you how many times I've been the trial balloon for someone's coming out to his family, how many times I've worn purple on Spirit day so LGBT kids know I'm in their corner. I know who Ron Jeremy is and, believe it or not,  pornography doesn't make me clutch my pearls and have the vapors, gay or straight. I also know rejected and abandoned LGBT kids account for a disproportionate part of the homeless populace, that they are forced into prostitution by predatory pimps and that bullied LGBT kids have a higher risk of suicide. Those are important issues, not whether a horny gay kid watches porn, unless it's taking the place of social interaction.

Oh I have no doubt that you, as an informed person, do know what those things are. That's why I mentioned them without explaining what they were. The world of a gay man is about the most dangerous there is, sexually speaking, and it's something that hits them right out of school. It's about often about meetups in internet chatrooms or men's rooms and anonymous sex. Their world is full of older predatory males. That's why HIV spread so rampantly among them, and in fact killed a close friend of mine. I just don't think that in the politically correct environment of a school and the hyper-decorum and restrictions on subject matter you can really prepare a gay male for the realities of the gay world. I wish you could, it's a jungle out here. But in truth they need straight talk, not kid gloves.

Lesbians are a bit more responsible, so maybe you can help them. Weird way to put it, but just something I've observed.

Why would anyone feel that way about a curriculum topic? No one is 'getting' any child to open up about abuse. This is disseminating information to either prevent abuse or let an abused child know there is help available? A kid who can't go to her parents for whatever reason is in emotional and perhaps physical trauma. It's vital to get her help to stop the abuser and abuse.

I'm all for telling them there is help available, as I said. Where my hang-up is trying to draw the information out of them in some sort of round-table discussion. That can backfire.

I suppose I should have waited until adulthood to read The Banality of Evil or Invisible Man or even The Scarlett Letter, given my impressionable young mind, but our English teacher thought we were mature enough to handle these books and their subjects. We were, and I'm grateful to him for not assigning insultingly easy lit. I don't know if Richard Ellison had a chip on his shoulder, but I'm glad I read his novel. It expanded my understanding of another culture.

Yeah, but those are pretty tame in subject and political content though. My teacher was more interested in indoctrinating me into leftwing politics and female supremacy. Sheeeeesh, you have no idea how over the top it was. At this point though, I should point out that I had some wonderful teachers as well as bad ones; I don't want to be unfair. My 7-8th grade science teacher corresponds with me to this day nearly 25+ years later, and my French teacher in high school was an amazing woman that could teach a foreign language to a fish if she had to, as was my American Government teacher.

Finally, something we can agree on!

Oh sure, I'd rate them as the best books for young adults and kids since Tolkien. They'll be classics of our time and Rowling's success is well-deserved. I wish she'd write more of them. However, since we're on that subject, what do you think of the "Hunger Games" craze? I'll warn ahead that I take a pretty dim view of it.

You might want to read The Last of the Just after Ten Boom, but beware. It will stay with you forever. I, too, share your admiration for Tolkien. There are a lot of excellent books that go into great depth on his christian/pagan themes and the underlying theme that the word is creation. Other than that, literature survey classes are like pellet shots: not everything is going to stick, and those that do you will remember. It's not tailored to your personal taste.

Already have read it. My argument is more about the inconsistency and political correctness of what you can present in such a class. If you can't hand a kid Mark Twain because of his use of the N word, well, you're not really presenting literature as it really is. You're presenting a warped view of it, whether you like it or not.

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. TS Elliot was a jerk, but I love his poetry. His private life doesn't matter to, except as a footnote, which is how I feel about Kerouac. On the other hand, there are a few children's authors I've met and who are very nice people. But that has no effect on my enjoyment of their work.

I must plead the fifth on this one, it's where I become really liberal and artsy. But I will say that when one writes a novel, especially one like "On the Road", one does it because you want to convey something. That's the only reason you would write such a novel is to challenge the establishment. Or, if you will, to walk away from Kerouac sober is to miss his entire point.

I take it  you're the Voltaire here. Well, what ideas are you throwing out? I've heard how we go back to making sex shameful, and how we should scare the shit out of kids, but there is nothing new or intrinsically worthwhile or even useful in either. The world wasn't especially a nice place when I graduated, or for that matter, when my mother did. It never is, that's nostalgia for times that never were.

Yup, you are the establishment now, remember. I'm just tossing out ideas in response to the failure of your methodology. I've watched the world degrade over my lifetime. I've seen movements come in that have the specific intent of hobbling human advancement. NASA, for example, barely exists now. I've done the drugs, had the sex, saw horrific things in the 90's, and when I see what my niece has to deal with these days I feel like an out of touch old man and I haven't hit 40 yet. The shit's getting worse, and you guys really shouldn't be marginalizing it. So, yeah, I'm pulling a Voltaire on you. I hope some ideas come across.

Absolutely not true. I care about all my students without regard for their abilities. However, my approach to them differs.

That's elitist. Are you prepared to sequester yourself from all walks of life and all manners of people based on IQ? Who will fix your car, or serve you coffee or even pick up the garbage? People are more than Stanford-Binet scores which are all very nice but hardly a prognostication for a happy, successful or satisfying life.

See, that's what I mean. I never said that the low-IQ don't have value, the fact is I respect the civil servant that makes sure the sewage system stays on track more than I respect the cop that sits around and gives out tickets on the highway. Everyone has their place--remember, I'm a humanist. But, you can't hold Einstein back just to be fair to everyone else and that seems to be what we do. Have you ever run across a person so gifted, so advanced that they had no business in your class? Would you recognize the kid with spacial cognitive abilities conducive to a masterful hold on physics? Actually, no, there is no such way to detect such a kid really. It's up to them to figure their own way out. You might see performance in math to tip you off, but the problem there is that it wouldn't have detected Einstein. It's all about luck, in the end, and Einstein got lucky sitting in a patent office writing papers. Otherwise everyone thought he was a moron. That's still true today, sadly.

And, well, take a look around. We don't have Einsteins today. Do you realize that, for a time, Albert Einstein was the most recognized household celebrity name? It isn't like that now, it's people like Bieber. We're in serious trouble and instead of asking all the questions to fix it, we need to be asking the taboo ones too.

I get the impression if something doesn't meet your expectations, you're outta there without giving it a chance. Why didn't you stay and try to be a force for change?"

Yeah, if something still isn't working after four decades, I'm probably not likely to advocate we keep trying it. I am a force for change in so far as I am capable, why do you think I'm arguing with you and writing books?

[NowhereInTime]

Gads this is the creepiest fun I've ever had watching two middle agers croaking back and forth about adolescent sexuality

[UnscreenedCaller]

Gads this is the creepiest fun I've ever had watching two middle agers croaking back and forth about adolescent sexuality

Pervert 

[onan]

I don't do point by point with those presenting with delusional thought.

However:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications450

Evaluations of comprehensive sex education and HIV/ STI prevention programs show that they do not increase rates of sexual initiation, do not lower the age at which youth initiate sex, and do not increase the frequency of sex or the number of sex partners among sexually active youth.[4,5,6,7,14,15]

Evaluations of comprehensive sex education and HIV/ STI prevention programs show that they do not increase rates of sexual initiation, do not lower the age at which youth initiate sex, and do not increase the frequency of sex or the number of sex partners among sexually active youth.[4,5,6,7,14,15]

According to Columbia University researchers, virginity pledge programs increase pledge-takers’ risk for STIs and pregnancy. The study concluded that 88 percent of pledge-takers initiated sex prior to marriage even though some delayed sex for a while. Rates of STIs among pledge-takers and non-pledgers were similar, even though pledge-takers initiated sex later. Pledge-takers were less likely to seek STI testing and less likely to use contraception when they did have sex.[20,21]

Evaluations of the effectiveness of state-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs found no delay in first sex. In fact, of six evaluations that assessed short-term changes in behavior, three found no changes, two found increased sexual activity from pre- to post-test, and one showed mixed results. Five evaluations looked for but found no long-term impact in reducing teens’ sexual activity.[9]

Analysis of federally funded abstinence-only curricula found that over 80 percent of curricula supported by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services contained false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. Specifically, they conveyed:

    False information about the effectiveness of contraceptives;
    False information about the risks of abortion;
    Religious beliefs as scientific fact;
    Stereotypes about boys and girls as scientific fact; and
    Medical and scientific errors of fact.[23]

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't do point by point with those presenting with delusional thought.

However:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications450

I don't see a single thing in that list that has any bearing on any points I made. It looks like a set of bullet points designed for arguing with a fundamentalist Christian advocating abstinence, and also appears to be defending sexual education classes from detractors that claim it lowers the age at which kids have sex.

Looks to me like you made a lot of assumptions, after admittedly not reading what I wrote. Give me some of whatever you're on!

[SciFiAuthor]

Gads this is the creepiest fun I've ever had watching two middle agers croaking back and forth about adolescent sexuality

Pffft, it was better than talking about middle-aged sexuality. Viagra, menopause, alimony checks . . .

[onan]

I don't see a single thing in that list that has any bearing on any points I made. It looks like a set of bullet points designed for arguing with a fundamentalist Christian advocating abstinence, and also appears to be defending sexual education classes from detractors that claim it lowers the age at which kids have sex.

Looks to me like you made a lot of assumptions, after admittedly not reading what I wrote. Give me some of whatever you're on!

I read you wanted to scare people into your belief system. I also read that you believe people that are adults and aren't functioning as a teenager secondary to your assumption that they are too hormone laden to make rational decisions, and are therefore not capable of actually teaching teenagers. I also took from one of your first paragraphs that no one really understands being horny... except you of course... due to your experience with 3 different women when you were younger.

So yeah I quit reading your blather. You did make, although too rant filled to really be of any use, several statements that sex ed was less than practical.

Look, plain and simple, you are a jack ass with lots of opinions and little fact. But because they are your opinions they are somehow significant.

[eeieeyeoh]

OK onan and SciFiAuthor, do either of you have a definition of what "anal sex" is, and which formal dictionary may I use to prove that it actually exists as a valid term? Please pardon my effort to thwart what had been already claimed but not learned from told in the story of the tower of Babel.

[onan]

OK onan and SciFiAuthor, do either of you have a definition of what "anal sex" is, and which formal dictionary may I use to prove that it actually exists as a valid term? Please pardon my effort to thwart what had been already claimed but not learned from told in the story of the tower of Babel.

Anal sex is the downfall of man, the cause of all wars, disease, and misery. It also is the reason my bank account is never balanced.

[eeieeyeoh]

Anal sex is the downfall of man, the cause of all wars, disease, and misery. It also is the reason my bank account is never balanced.

You'd have a better arguement if you couldn't figure out how to balance your legally required insurance account owned by business allowed to make any profit desired by any means including causing accidents and later trying to escape responsibility for those well trained actions.

[NowhereInTime]

I love you Onan. You are the most pseudo-intellectual person I've ever interacted with, so much that you'll even go so far as to condemn my post and then admit you didn't read it as though such a thing is even remotely not bonkers. You just can't make stuff like that up. <chuckles>

Now run along back to your Noory trashing. I'm rather disappointed about that, actually. The voluptuous finely manicured and grecian formula colored moustache really fell off that thread. It's been really tame lately and I've been relegated to posting in the politics forum. What the hell is wrong with you guys? The fire go out?

Bitching about Snooron is like spitting into the wind.  Nothing we say will make any difference, especially since he (or Fat Tommy) stopped trolling the site a while back.

[SciFiAuthor]

I read you wanted to scare people into your belief system. I also read that you believe people that are adults and aren't functioning as a teenager secondary to your assumption that they are too hormone laden to make rational decisions, and are therefore not capable of actually teaching teenagers. I also took from one of your first paragraphs that no one really understands being horny... except you of course... due to your experience with 3 different women when you were younger.

So yeah I quit reading your blather. You did make, although too rant filled to really be of any use, several statements that sex ed was less than practical.

Look, plain and simple, you are a jack ass with lots of opinions and little fact. But because they are your opinions they are somehow significant.

I'm simply suggesting that we apply what we do already to effect change because what we're doing now is demonstrably not working. We scare the shit out of people through climate change talk so they'll be greener, we scare the shit out of them in regards to drunk driving with crashed up cars displayed in the school yard, we do all sorts of things based on fear tactics today.

It would be common courtesy to at least read my post if you're going to post against it. Do you do everything in life from an admittedly uninformed position?

I also took from one of your first paragraphs that no one really understands being horny... except you of course... due to your experience with 3 different women when you were younger.

That isn't what I said. It's an intentional distortion of what I said. Why would you do that?

What I really said is that to a 16 year-old kid that had been sexually active for several years, watching a teacher putting a condom on a cucumber looked hopelessly detached, foolish and comical and very much out of touch to me and most kids around me. I think that would be the case today, just as it was 20 years ago.

[SciFiAuthor]

OK onan and SciFiAuthor, do either of you have a definition of what "anal sex" is, and which formal dictionary may I use to prove that it actually exists as a valid term? Please pardon my effort to thwart what had been already claimed but not learned from told in the story of the tower of Babel.

I don't really care if it's a valid term or not, that's one of the things I'm complaining about. Thusly I'll just go with the vernacular: it's fucking someone up the butt. It's interchangeable whether the taker is male or female. Hope that helps.

[SciFiAuthor]

Bitching about Snooron is like spitting into the wind.  Nothing we say will make any difference, especially since he (or Fat Tommy) stopped trolling the site a while back.

Be careful what you wish for, George could pop through the secret door and into the Suck thread at any moment and thrash you with a strongly-worded, but still G-rated, post. That's just how he is.