School District approves Middle School X-Rated Sex Education Poster

[Yorkshire pud]

Sorry if the American language is that much different than Briitish english. I have no cross reference to translate.

Oh, I'm familiar with the words; I'm not familiar with your version of syntax.

And contrary to popular but misguided opinion, there is no such thing as American or British<sic> English. It's English or it's a bastardised version of it irrespective of where it's spoken.

[eeieeyeoh]

Oh, I'm familiar with the words; I'm not familiar with your version of syntax.

And contrary to popular but misguided opinion, there is no such thing as American or British<sic> English. It's English or it's a bastardised version of it irrespective of where it's spoken.

That's an interesting view. I don't know if you've seen a dictionary that cross references different languages before. I only have the English-German German-English version.

I worked w/engineer and had many conversations with during our breaks of work, and he told me of a past business trip he went on to England. In his time off from business matters he checked out local book stores (maybe London). In a very humorous way he mentioned that he found an American-British British-American dictionary that cross referenced the languages there and was sorry that he didn't buy it and bring it home to the States. All I remember it was a very funny conversation of how words are used differently of approximate same language, and a great way to have a break from the more pressing matters of figuring out other stuff customers were in need of. I don't know how to measure the benefits of going down an engineering path that sort of ends in a dead end, and just taking a break to think about something entirely different to refresh the brain to begin a new approach except it has worked in the past.

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't know how to measure the benefits of going down an engineering path that sort of ends in a dead end, and just taking a break to think about something entirely different to refresh the brain to begin a new approach except it has worked in the past.

Lipo batteries.

[onan]

I'm not attempting to hire you on this forum.

If you were raised in Western Civilization, your understanding of who Moses was and direction of his followers was my inquiry about your foundation. You have the right to hide that if you wish.

However for forum topic, perhaps you can explain the pleasure you found injecting semen through an anus. Please be aware that I was a Veterinarian assistant of a very good Veterinarian through High School on weekends. That kind of Medicine doesn't have the luxury of a patient that can use words. That profession requires observing nature and interacting with it appropriately.

And of course you are demonstrating observational bias... I know, no dictionary, look it up.

In the course of your discovery, perhaps you will become enlightened enough to understand that homosexuality does not always include anal sex, and more importantly heterosexuality does sometime include anal sex.

If you are not inclined towards that behavior, kudos. But to believe that it will in someway blink the behavior out of existence is puts you square in the "Peter Pan" cognitive range.

And fuck Moses... in his ass.

[SciFiAuthor]

I love how we evolve as adults. When we're teenagers, a teacher could say "I've had sex with one woman, and we always did it the normal way--but only after we were married-and you should do it the same way" or conversely the teacher could say "Well, me and the wife are bored with swinging. So I'm going home to spank my wife until she's sufficiently horny, then I'll call her a cunt while I tie her arms up on the bed while I pour blue food coloring on my dick and scream about how I'm going to fuck her smurf-style" and it comes across exactly the same to a teen: you're detached and not relevant to what they're experiencing. But when we're adults, we act as though we actually remember, in our low-testosterone or menopausic state, how it was to be a horny, inexperienced teen. You're lying if you think you do remember being that way, or even understand it. You don't. It's more than memory, there's the sense of newness and hormones as well which you no longer have.

Yet from our aged position we think we can "inform" and "understand" teen sexuality. Um, no, you can't. As a man, if the first thing you think about is a cup of coffee in the morning, then you have forgotten your teens. If the first thing, as a woman, you think about the work day awaiting you rather than who likes you and what the other girls are saying about you, um, no, you forgot what it was like to be a teen girl.

Yet we foist our experience on these kids and think it's going to be relevant to them. No, it won't be until they're 30+. What we need to do is what we used to do: scare the fuck out of them regarding sex and hope to Christ they don't get knocked up or knock someone up until they're at least old enough to realize what it implicates.

That's not what we do. Instead we tell them to enjoy themselves and give them posters that talk about how cornholing might be safer and how putting a condom on a cucumber actually teaches something. Yeah, that's going to work LOL. And it hasn't. We've been trying that method for years and they're still having babies and screwing up and society hasn't improved as a result of that method. So why do we push further?

Scare them, don't empathize with them. Scare the absolute shit out of them even if you have to lie. They'll understand why we did that when they're adults and dealing with their own kids. You do not have to tell a kid the truth about sex. You just have to convince them that it's dangerous at their stage in the game.

[Yorkshire pud]

Scare them, don't empathize with them. Scare the absolute shit out of them even if you have to lie. They'll understand why we did that when they're adults and dealing with their own kids. You do not have to tell a kid the truth about sex. You just have to convince them that it's dangerous at their stage in the game.

Hmmm, so everyone takes the catholic approach? It simply doesn't work, and what happens is the kid is too terrified to go to anyone when they were not as terrified as they were intended to be. My own parents told me jack about sex; they were too uncomfortable about it (as are many parents), so exactly when and how was I (and others like me) supposed to learn? At my school we had biology that simply looked at human reproduction without the romance. 'Sex' education was conducted by a history teacher (yes really!) who happened to be the year head when we were 14 or 15 years old..total time? 55 minutes..

The rest we read on toilet walls and hearsay from friends who'd 'done it' (Well no they hadn't, but hey, they wouldn't lie eh?)..So I left school not even knowing why women had PMT, or why sexual attraction was so strong as a teenager, but equally met with the perfect contraceptive-acne. In short I knew fuck all about sexual relationships, my best friend didn't, because his mother was a nurse and had made a point of giving him information as and when he asked from about aged 4.

Why is it some adults believe that teenagers shouldn't know about sexual feelings, and understanding the changes going on in their heads and bodies? Ignorance isn't bliss. If it had been a story of a school teaching kids to shoot machine guns in order to fight the next US revolution, they wouldn't have batted an eye. They might even have said it was praiseworthy and had the teachers on saying how wonderful they were. 

[aldousburbank]

I love how we evolve as adults. When we're teenagers, a teacher could say "I've had sex with one woman, and we always did it the normal way--but only after we were married-and you should do it the same way" or conversely the teacher could say "Well, me and the wife are bored with swinging. So I'm going home to spank my wife until she's sufficiently horny, then I'll call her a cunt while I tie her arms up on the bed while I pour blue food coloring on my dick and scream about how I'm going to fuck her smurf-style" and it comes across exactly the same to a teen: you're detached and not relevant to what they're experiencing. But when we're adults, we act as though we actually remember, in our low-testosterone or menopausic state, how it was to be a horny, inexperienced teen. You're lying if you think you do remember being that way, or even understand it. You don't. It's more than memory, there's the sense of newness and hormones as well which you no longer have.

Yet from our aged position we think we can "inform" and "understand" teen sexuality. Um, no, you can't. As a man, if the first thing you think about is a cup of coffee in the morning, then you have forgotten your teens. If the first thing, as a woman, you think about the work day awaiting you rather than who likes you and what the other girls are saying about you, um, no, you forgot what it was like to be a teen girl.

Yet we foist our experience on these kids and think it's going to be relevant to them. No, it won't be until they're 30+. What we need to do is what we used to do: scare the fuck out of them regarding sex and hope to Christ they don't get knocked up or knock someone up until they're at least old enough to realize what it implicates.

That's not what we do. Instead we tell them to enjoy themselves and give them posters that talk about how cornholing might be safer and how putting a condom on a cucumber actually teaches something. Yeah, that's going to work LOL. And it hasn't. We've been trying that method for years and they're still having babies and screwing up and society hasn't improved as a result of that method. So why do we push further?

Scare them, don't empathize with them. Scare the absolute shit out of them even if you have to lie. They'll understand why we did that when they're adults and dealing with their own kids. You do not have to tell a kid the truth about sex. You just have to convince them that it's dangerous at their stage in the game.

I am arguing with myself over how much I agree with and appreciate this post. Strange start, nice unpacking. Well thought out. I win. I like it!

[wr250]

Hmmm, so everyone takes the catholic approach? It simply doesn't work, and what happens is the kid is too terrified to go to anyone when they were not as terrified as they were intended to be. My own parents told me jack about sex; they were too uncomfortable about it (as are many parents), so exactly when and how was I (and others like me) supposed to learn? At my school we had biology that simply looked at human reproduction without the romance. 'Sex' education was conducted by a history teacher (yes really!) who happened to be the year head when we were 14 or 15 year sold..total time? 55 minutes..

The rest we read on toilet walls and hearsay from friends who'd 'done it' (Well no they hadn't, but hey, they wouldn't lie eh?)..So I left school not even knowing why women had PMT, or why sexual attraction was so strong as a teenager, but equally met with the perfect contraceptive-acne. In short I knew fuck all about sexual relationships, my best friend didn't, because his mother was a nurse and had made a point of giving him information as and when he asked from about aged 4.

Why is it some adults believe that teenagers shouldn't know about sexual feelings, and understanding the changes going on in their heads and bodies? Ignorance isn't bliss. If it had been a story of a school teaching kids to shoot machine guns in order to fight the next US revolution, they wouldn't have batted an eye. They might even have said it was praiseworthy and had the teachers on saying how wonderful they were. 

guns are banned by law on us school property, (we see how well that works dont we), thus there is no weapons training in skrools here. when i was in school (back in the bronze age i guess) we had a rifle club and archery club. archery was taught in gym (Pys ed) as well. now everyone is terrified some kid might go off and go on a shooting  spree or something. the original us revolution is barely mentioned today,and the founding document gets a pass in schools.

[Yorkshire pud]

guns are banned by law on us school property, (we see how well that works dont we), thus there is no weapons training in skrools here. when i was in school (back in the bronze age i guess) we had a rifle club and archery club. archery was taught in gym (Pys ed) as well. now everyone is terrified some kid might go off and go on a shooting  spree or something. the original us revolution is barely mentioned today,and the founding document gets a pass in schools.

I think though you appreciate how priorities of outrage get selective. This post was put up as a way of slagging off teachers trying to educate. Not ONE thread was started about the 13 year old in NM who shot other kids in the gym of his school last week. And very little mention of the child who shot their cousin with a loaded rifle her grandfather put under a bed. Yet moral outrage that teenagers are being taught that hey, not every boy or every girl is the identikit picture of the Waltons or Little house on the Prairie, and may in fact be anything but. But you know what? It's okay, it doesn't make them less as people.

[aldousburbank]

guns are banned by law on us school property, (we see how well that works dont we), thus there is no weapons training in skrools here. when i was in school (back in the bronze age i guess) we had a rifle club and archery club. archery was taught in gym (Pys ed) as well. now everyone is terrified some kid might go off and go on a shooting  spree or something. the original us revolution is barely mentioned today,and the founding document gets a pass in schools.

We had a rifle range at school and used to plink cans with .22s on the walk through the desert to school and put them in our lockers when we got there. No prob. We handled our own sex education pretty well too.

[UnscreenedCaller]

Ignorance is bliss is an axiom, not a blueprint to live by. I grew up Catholic in an era when ignorance was bliss and scare tactics were the norm. Trust me, it didn't prevent pregnancies, but there were plenty of babies growing up who thought their mothers were their sisters. I personally know of two.one can imagine how they felt as adults when they were let in on the secret everyone knew but them.

One issue my time, the  Good Old Days, didn't have was HIV/AIDs. Now that's worth scaring young people about but only if one is equally honest and admits that scaring the bejesus isn't likely to do anything more than earn adolescent scorn, if you're speaking to kids who are sexually active at 13. It proves nothing. Sex Ed isn't a 'how to' guide or tacit approval. It's an attempt to keep our young people educated, disease free and able to take responsibility for their sexuality and their actions. A child need to know that chylamidia may make it impossible to become pregnant later on in life, or that their orientation is as normal as their 'handedness'. It beats shouting at unresponsive ears like a well-meaning, but out of touch Dutch uncle.

[Up All Night]

We never had a Sex Ed Class in the public schools I went to in the late 60's and early 70's.

What we did have, in Jr. High school was an assembly in  the lunch room, just for boys ( I assume the girls had their assembly somew other day).

It was joke, the lunchroom was full of 12 & 13 year old boys who watched a b&w film that showed medical book diagrams of the reproductive tracks of males and females. It covered the major venereal disases. I think they mentioned masturbation, and how it would not make you go blind.

At the end of this 20 minute presentation, the coach stood up their and asked the lunchroom full of boys "Does anyone have any questions??"
Whether anyone did, no 7th or 8th grader opened his mouth or rasied their hand. I can't imagine anyone asking anything in such a public assembly. But hey, the school fullfilled their state mandated obligations with one assembly. And that, was all that really mattered to them.

As for teen pregnancy, an 8th grade cheerleader, that was good looking and well built for her age, left mid-term. The word was that she became pregnant (probably from some High Schooler, as females of that age generally find older boys way more appealing than boys of their own age).

The football coach of the Jr. High was the person in charge.

[SciFiAuthor]

Hmmm, so everyone takes the catholic approach? It simply doesn't work, and what happens is the kid is too terrified to go to anyone when they were not as terrified as they were intended to be. My own parents told me jack about sex; they were too uncomfortable about it (as are many parents), so exactly when and how was I (and others like me) supposed to learn? At my school we had biology that simply looked at human reproduction without the romance. 'Sex' education was conducted by a history teacher (yes really!) who happened to be the year head when we were 14 or 15 years old..total time? 55 minutes..

The rest we read on toilet walls and hearsay from friends who'd 'done it' (Well no they hadn't, but hey, they wouldn't lie eh?)..So I left school not even knowing why women had PMT, or why sexual attraction was so strong as a teenager, but equally met with the perfect contraceptive-acne. In short I knew fuck all about sexual relationships, my best friend didn't, because his mother was a nurse and had made a point of giving him information as and when he asked from about aged 4.

Why is it some adults believe that teenagers shouldn't know about sexual feelings, and understanding the changes going on in their heads and bodies? Ignorance isn't bliss. If it had been a story of a school teaching kids to shoot machine guns in order to fight the next US revolution, they wouldn't have batted an eye. They might even have said it was praiseworthy and had the teachers on saying how wonderful they were.

No, just realize that sex education to a teenager is a freaking joke. I'm young enough to have gone through a sex ed class as part of high school. By the time I got to the class, I'd had sex with three women, carried condoms in my wallet and sat aghast at the ridiculousness of what was being taught. In my case, it didn't help that the class was being taught by an obviously very butch gay woman that had very likely never seen a condom in real use, but even after the folly of that there was nothing there. No substance. We already knew everything that was being taught from a more informed position than the textbook.

It's just a bullshit credit and a way for some leftwing social activist somewhere to sit in the coffee shop and pat themselves on the back for getting their bullcrap into the curriculum. To a kid, it's little more than a comedy routine. The point is you cannot empathize or even understand teen sexuality from an adult POV and successfully teach anything about it without making an ass out of yourself. In fact, you're probably just encouraging them to do everything you're trying to warn them not to.

You say the catholic approach doesn't work? Um, yes, it apparently did in comparison to now. There were a whole lot less unwanted pregnancies decades ago under that morality than there is today. That is a bottom line. What failed is the 1960's free sex movement and the subsequent bombardment of our kids with sexual content in the media. Our methods of combating it through sex ed have failed--if we had any common sense we'd know why--and teen pregnancy and VD is everywhere.

You guys have had 40 years of sex ed. We are actively trying your method and it hasn't had a meaningful effect. Well, the only other way is to go back to scaring the absolute shit out of them.

Or, alternatively, if you really want to escape the ignorance is bliss idiom, let's adjust the curriculum and have it taught by angry divorcees, do it without decorum rules, and REALLY tell it like it is in our sex world. Set me up there and let me talk about how "That bitch will take half of everything you own in a decade, kid. The pussy ain't worth it. You're better off marrying a bottle of gin and some vermouth," or likewise have a dried up old barfly counterpart go in and say "Here's how you tell when he's cheating or using a whore." Show them examples of the herp and HPV and then we might have something. But I bet the sex ed people wouldn't support that though, because, well, reality isn't really what we're all concerned about it. Ignorance is still bliss.

[SciFiAuthor]

And, um, you know folks . . . sex really isn't rocket science. It's a fairly easy one to figure out when it comes time to have it, assuming instinct doesn't tell you. I'm not sure I get the need to educate about how to do it in the first place. Seems more like taking the fun out of discovery to me.

[SciFiAuthor]

Ignorance is bliss is an axiom, not a blueprint to live by. I grew up Catholic in an era when ignorance was bliss and scare tactics were the norm. Trust me, it didn't prevent pregnancies, but there were plenty of babies growing up who thought their mothers were their sisters. I personally know of two.one can imagine how they felt as adults when they were let in on the secret everyone knew but them.

One issue my time, the  Good Old Days, didn't have was HIV/AIDs. Now that's worth scaring young people about but only if one is equally honest and admits that scaring the bejesus isn't likely to do anything more than earn adolescent scorn, if you're speaking to kids who are sexually active at 13. It proves nothing. Sex Ed isn't a 'how to' guide or tacit approval. It's an attempt to keep our young people educated, disease free and able to take responsibility for their sexuality and their actions. A child need to know that chylamidia may make it impossible to become pregnant later on in life, or that their orientation is as normal as their 'handedness'. It beats shouting at unresponsive ears like a well-meaning, but out of touch Dutch uncle.

Well, the ones not likely to ever contract chylamidia in the first place might listen, but the rest are going to sit there and go "Cla-what? Oh, look at the tits on her . . . "

Actually, it's even more out of touch than that. Look at the spread of Herpes and how it's occurred in the age of sex ed. Obviously people aren't listening because it keeps on spreading. So we've spent all that money and effort on education that hasn't done anything. The money would have been better spent on curing herpes.

[Up All Night]

Yet from our aged position we think we can "inform" and "understand" teen sexuality.

Yet we foist our experience on these kids and think it's going to be relevant to them. No, it won't be until they're 30+. What we need to do is what we used to do: scare the fuck out of them regarding sex and hope to Christ they don't get knocked up or knock someone up until they're at least old enough to realize what it implicates.

Or, you could get Marty & Bobbi Culp to warn the middle-schoolers at a mandatory Sex-Ed assembly.... 

Marty & Bobbi Culp - Mandatory Drug Assembly

[Up All Night]

The Churchy version of Sex Ed, featuring Marty & Bobbi Culp 

Drama- The Culps sing about Sex Ed

[Birdie]

This poster shows that the school district is keeping up with the times. The inclusion of anal sex is necessary because now-a-days, some young people think that having anal sex 'doesn't count' and is a good way to remain a virgin. Smh. I guess technically that is true, but so wrong at the same time. Some young man, somewhere, was one persuasive, smooth talking son of a bitch! Also, oral sex is very, very common at middle school age. Being 13 is not what is used to be.
Teen pregnancy is at an all time low across all ethnic groups in the US, due to access to contraceptives and reality-based sex education. As an aside, one of my favorite examples of the type of sex ed that does not work is Bristol Palin running her mouth about abstinence, both before and after she had a kid.

[Yorkshire pud]

No, just realize that sex education to a teenager is a freaking joke. I'm young enough to have gone through a sex ed class as part of high school. By the time I got to the class, I'd had sex with three women, carried condoms in my wallet and sat aghast at the ridiculousness of what was being taught. In my case, it didn't help that the class was being taught by an obviously very butch gay woman that had very likely never seen a condom in real use, but even after the folly of that there was nothing there. No substance. We already knew everything that was being taught from a more informed position than the textbook.

Yeah, YOU did. Not every kid does. And those that think they know (because at 14 kids know everything about everything don't they?) very often don't.

It's just a bullshit credit and a way for some leftwing social activist somewhere to sit in the coffee shop and pat themselves on the back for getting their bullcrap into the curriculum. To a kid, it's little more than a comedy routine. The point is you cannot empathize or even understand teen sexuality from an adult POV and successfully teach anything about it without making an ass out of yourself. In fact, you're probably just encouraging them to do everything you're trying to warn them not to.

So we'll take the 'right' rightwing approach and scare kids to death. Would it have stopped you having sex? It doesn't elsewhere, in any culture. In fact in some countries (that are far from left wing) girls getting pregnant before marriage are routinely stoned to death. Still doesn't stop girls getting pregnant, so maybe they should get really firm and burn a house down with all pubescent girls inside it-that'll show em.

You say the catholic approach doesn't work? Um, yes, it apparently did in comparison to now. There were a whole lot less unwanted pregnancies decades ago under that morality than there is today.

Um, no there weren't. They just didn't get on the public radar. It was seem as bringing disgrace on the family No matter that the girl often miscarried, or bled to death in childbirth, as long as their adoring family kept a lid on it and they weren't shunned, that's the important thing.

That is a bottom line. What failed is the 1960's free sex movement and the subsequent bombardment of our kids with sexual content in the media. Our methods of combating it through sex ed have failed--if we had any common sense we'd know why--and teen pregnancy and VD is everywhere.

What happened in the 60's was the introduction of the contraceptive pill that gave women (yes, women) control of their own ability to choose to be pregnant or not. In some ways ignorance and misadventure still prevails, and some girls (and even women in their 30's and 40's) think just missing one day won't matter.  VD was exported. Remember wars? Young men with all that testosterone coursing through their veins in some cases having consensual sex with young girls in far off lands. Again, a lack of education and knowledge has left (and still does), leave girls vulnerable. "Yeah of course I love you honey, and anyway, you can't get pregnant first time"

You guys have had 40 years of sex ed. We are actively trying your method and it hasn't had a meaningful effect. Well, the only other way is to go back to scaring the absolute shit out of them.

See above.

Or, alternatively, if you really want to escape the ignorance is bliss idiom, let's adjust the curriculum and have it taught by angry divorcees, do it without decorum rules, and REALLY tell it like it is in our sex world. Set me up there and let me talk about how "That bitch will take half of everything you own in a decade, kid. The pussy ain't worth it. You're better off marrying a bottle of gin and some vermouth," or likewise have a dried up old barfly counterpart go in and say "Here's how you tell when he's cheating or using a whore." Show them examples of the herp and HPV and then we might have something. But I bet the sex ed people wouldn't support that though, because, well, reality isn't really what we're all concerned about it. Ignorance is still bliss.

I'm all for having a holistic approach, as long as it's factual, and done in a mature way appropriate for the age group (and in some cases individual comprehension ability), but without the anger, without the invective.

[SciFiAuthor]

Yeah, YOU did. Not every kid does. And those that think they know (because at 14 kids know everything about everything don't they?) very often don't.

Well yeah, that's my point. You can't tell a 14 year old jack shit and have them believe it. If you dig into sex and drugs, they REALLY won't believe it. So what do you hope to accomplish? Just try to tell a 14 yo not to try smoking pot. We all know that's hopeless, foolish even. You expect a better response from teacher-student sex talk?

So we'll take the 'right' rightwing approach and scare kids to death. Would it have stopped you having sex? It doesn't elsewhere, in any culture. In fact in some countries (that are far from left wing) girls getting pregnant before marriage are routinely stoned to death. Still doesn't stop girls getting pregnant, so maybe they should get really firm and burn a house down with all pubescent girls inside it-that'll show em.

Well, it used to work. It also used to stop kids from having sex. I don't think my grandma was giving blowjobs for sacks of weed here, and neither was my mother. Was yours? Yet, I got blown plenty as a teen, so something changed. It's the something that changed we should be looking at, rather than pontificating to kids about what they shouldn't do and looking ridiculous the whole way along. Especially since most of us do what we're telling them not to, and those that aren't are detached, sheltered people that wouldn't know their head from their ass. It's better to just scare the shit out of kids like our grandparents did with our parents.

Um, no there weren't. They just didn't get on the public radar. It was seem as bringing disgrace on the family No matter that the girl often miscarried, or bled to death in childbirth, as long as their adoring family kept a lid on it and they weren't shunned, that's the important thing.

Disgrace is good. At some point we decided that living on the dole, or getting knocked up wasn't socially disgraceful, instead it was socially acceptable. Thusly more people did it; that was the end result. Now it's causing our countries to incur debt and people to ruin their lives before they've even got started. Banishing disgrace and moving towards acceptance of damned nearly everything is promoting a society that will fail everyone. It already is failing. And, each year, we accept more and more failure. If society continues in this way, you will see a day where pedophilia is accepted. That's where we're headed. I don't see the improvement with all of this, please explain it to me.

What happened in the 60's was the introduction of the contraceptive pill that gave women (yes, women) control of their own ability to choose to be pregnant or not. In some ways ignorance and misadventure still prevails, and some girls (and even women in their 30's and 40's) think just missing one day won't matter.  VD was exported. Remember wars? Young men with all that testosterone coursing through their veins in some cases having consensual sex with young girls in far off lands. Again, a lack of education and knowledge has left (and still does), leave girls vulnerable. "Yeah of course I love you honey, and anyway, you can't get pregnant first time"

What happened in the 60's was the same thing that happened under the Bela Kun government of Hungary. If you pander to people's hormones, they vote for you. The contraceptive pill is immaterial, and anti-humanist, just like the abortion movement is. It's not about giving women a choice, that's emotive crap used to trap weak minds with talking points. In reality it's about instilling people with the idea that you've liberated them so they'll give you a vote and you can grift them, control them, keep down the minorities as Margaret Sanger openly promoted as did Keynes, and rule unopposed. Again, that's where we're headed. Reason plays little part, and I'm fully willing to explore that if you wish.

See above.
I'm all for having a holistic approach, as long as it's factual, and done in a mature way appropriate for the age group (and in some cases individual comprehension ability), but without the anger, without the invective.

Well, that's the problem isn't it? You're trying to be mature to immature people. You're trying to remember what it was like to be a 16 year old male, but you no longer have the testosterone (not an attack, I haven't got it either) to form a basis for a coherent argument to them. As such, when adult talks about sex, we sound like idiots to kids and they do the exact opposite of what we want. That's not viability, that's stupidity. We should really be looking into why they know so much about sex so early--when we did not--and address that first if we have any interest or hope to fix this problem. Given our methods and courses of action, I don't think we have that interest. Instead, it's just some bullshit some activists decided to foist on everyone so they could feel good wrapping it up in the usual "awareness" and "education" garbage. They sold it with talking points rather than reality, and here we are looking like asses to our kids.

If you want to fix a problem, fix it. Don't fuck around and do little dances. Scare the shit out of them. It worked before, it will work again.

[Yorkshire pud]

Well yeah, that's my point. You can't tell a 14 year old jack shit and have them believe it. If you dig into sex and drugs, they REALLY won't believe it. So what do you hope to accomplish? Just try to tell a 14 yo not to try smoking pot. We all know that's hopeless, foolish even. You expect a better response from teacher-student sex talk?

You answered your own question.. You tell kids NOT to smoke, drink or take narcotics and they'll find a way to do it, because a proportion will want to know what all the fuss is about. Years ago I was step father to a girl her mother (my wife) is a doctor. Me and her mother used to regularly have a bottle of wine on the go for our evening meal, and at aged about 10, Hannah asked if she could have a sip. We watered down a thimble full of a white wine we were drinking, she took a sip, screwed her nose up and decided she didn't like it. At aged 11, she asked again to try a red wine. Again we watered down a thimble full and she took a sip, and once again she didn't like it. She'd also been introduced to sex/ reproduction education from aged about 3. She was very intelligent, and the last time I spoke to her when she was aged 17, she rolled her eyes recounting parties she'd been to where everyone in her peer group was smashed out of their heads on booze. She was tea total, and in her words, booze wasn't a big deal, just unpleasant to drink for her. Her way of saying, been there, done it, not interested. Would she have felt the same if her first encounter was at 16-17 and feeling pressured to get smashed with her friends? No idea. But she was confident enough to say no, because she was educated and had been given the facts, not made to feel she should be scared to death. Same with sex.

Well, it used to work. It also used to stop kids from having sex.

No it didn't. It really didn't. It just went unsaid. And a lot of girls' introduction to sex was from their older brothers, fathers, uncles, bosses who they were scared to death of. Sure, they felt shame, but for a completely different reason.

I don't think my grandma was giving blowjobs for sacks of weed here, and neither was my mother. Was yours?

Oh c'mon, don't. We both know our parents and grandparents don't represent the world. Prostitution wasn't invented in the last fifty years.  Know how many soldiers in WW1 were infected? 10000 soldiers were discharged because of STD's. They lost 7 million person days, there were official brothels on the front.

Yet, I got blown plenty as a teen, so something changed. It's the something that changed we should be looking at, rather than pontificating to kids about what they shouldn't do and looking ridiculous the whole way along. Especially since most of us do what we're telling them not to, and those that aren't are detached, sheltered people that wouldn't know their head from their ass. It's better to just scare the shit out of kids like our grandparents did with our parents.

It isn't about pontificating (because scaring them to death certainly is anyway); It's about presenting the facts, discussing their opinions and letting them think about things. Or just send em away knowing jack, and not making informed choices.

Disgrace is good. At some point we decided that living on the dole, or getting knocked up wasn't socially disgraceful, instead it was socially acceptable. Thusly more people did it; that was the end result. Now it's causing our countries to incur debt and people to ruin their lives before they've even got started. Banishing disgrace and moving towards acceptance of damned nearly everything is promoting a society that will fail everyone. It already is failing. And, each year, we accept more and more failure. If society continues in this way, you will see a day where pedophilia is accepted. That's where we're headed. I don't see the improvement with all of this, please explain it to me.

As I said before; it's screwed up that there is seemingly no disgrace in having 14% of the adult population functionally illiterate, but there is hell to pay when Janet Jackson drops her tit out on TV. A girl shouldn't feel disgrace for being pregnat. Seriously? Have you been near a woman who is pregnant? Her hormones and head is all over the place, and what about the post natal depression? Keep kicking the bitch telling her how disgraceful she is, until she kills her self in the shame? Yep, that works.

What happened in the 60's was the same thing that happened under the Bela Kun government of Hungary. If you pander to people's hormones, they vote for you. The contraceptive pill is immaterial, and anti-humanist, just like the abortion movement is. It's not about giving women a choice, that's emotive crap used to trap weak minds with talking points. In reality it's about instilling people with the idea that you've liberated them so they'll give you a vote and you can grift them, control them, keep down the minorities as Margaret Sanger openly promoted as did Keynes, and rule unopposed. Again, that's where we're headed. Reason plays little part, and I'm fully willing to explore that if you wish.

Oh, I'll leave that for a woman to address. Good luck with that.

Well, that's the problem isn't it? You're trying to be mature to immature people. You're trying to remember what it was like to be a 16 year old male, but you no longer have the testosterone (not an attack, I haven't got it either) to form a basis for a coherent argument to them. As such, when adult talks about sex, we sound like idiots to kids and they do the exact opposite of what we want. That's not viability, that's stupidity. We should really be looking into why they know so much about sex so early--when we did not

Sigh...SOME do..Not all. A lot of the reason is the very parents who get sanctimonious about teachers teaching sex education. If any mantra pisses me off more than 'Parents know best' I don't know it. Many parents are fucking ignorant, I know, I've met them. I've met women who thought twins came from shagging two different men in the same month!  I've met men who thought vasectomies stopped a man ejaculating.  If parents stream porn through their router and the kids see it aged 6, and then thinks that is what (and ONLY) what sex is, it's hardly any wonder by the time they reach 13 a lot are screwed up about their own feelings and thoughts.

--and address that first if we have any interest or hope to fix this problem. Given our methods and courses of action, I don't think we have that interest. Instead, it's just some bullshit some activists decided to foist on everyone so they could feel good wrapping it up in the usual "awareness" and "education" garbage. They sold it with talking points rather than reality, and here we are looking like asses to our kids.

If you want to fix a problem, fix it. Don't fuck around and do little dances. Scare the shit out of them. It worked before, it will work again.

It never did work, it won't now, and it won't in the future. I never respected anyone trying to scare me.

[UnscreenedCaller]

And, um, you know folks . . . sex really isn't rocket science. It's a fairly easy one to figure out when it comes time to have it, assuming instinct doesn't tell you. I'm not sure I get the need to educate about how to do it in the first place. Seems more like taking the fun out of discovery to me.

Are you sure about that? How many girls end up with surprise pregnancies because they and their partners thought pulling out was a contraceptive method because their friend, equally ignorant or innocent depending on your PoV, told them so. You see, that's why having a relationship with my son where he could tell me or ask me anything was wonderful. I've heard it all, and then some.  I also remember being 13 quite well. Two of my friends became pregnant.

Well, the ones not likely to ever contract chylamidia in the first place might listen, but the rest are going to sit there and go "Cla-what? Oh, look at the tits on her . . . "

Actually, it's even more out of touch than that. Look at the spread of Herpes and how it's occurred in the age of sex ed. Obviously people aren't listening because it keeps on spreading. So we've spent all that money and effort on education that hasn't done anything. The money would have been better spent on curing herpes.

So the solution is to do nothing. Give up, stop trying.  And if some people don't read an author's books, he should stop writing because of them, correct?

I'm immersed in kids 8 hours a day. You would be amazed to find how, when you are ready to despair that they aren't listening, you discover later on they were, intently. It's an art and science to teach kids, particularly middle school ones. But never, ever assume they aren't listening because they're cracking jokes. They're kids, that's what they do, but when they're invested, they pay attention. And you don't give up because a few don't. I haven't yet stopped teaching fractions because not everyone gets it. I just try harder to find another approach to hook the others in.

Do you know why it's so important to teach sex ed? It's not because of the mechanics. A quick perusal of google will turn up any number of good sexuality websites. But the world is a more complicated place now. A  sex ed, or sexuality class is someplace that provides a safe atmosphere for kids to spout out all that ignorance without judgement and know that they will not be condescended to or lied to or in any way put down. A good curriculum will cover STD's, HIV/AIDS, risky sexual behaviour, hygiene, pregnancy and disease prevention, birth control, LGBT concerns, an overview of sexuality both medically and historically, social media, sexting, sexual abuse, predatory online behaviour. It's not a how to fuck guide, it's a systematic curriculum designed to take them through all these issues with enough time to do them justice, including opportunities for discussion because kids learn when they solve problems themselves.

Well yeah, that's my point. You can't tell a 14 year old jack shit and have them believe it. If you dig into sex and drugs, they REALLY won't believe it. So what do you hope to accomplish? Just try to tell a 14 yo not to try smoking pot. We all know that's hopeless, foolish even. You expect a better response from teacher-student sex talk?

First of all, teaching is not 'a talk'. It's not a teacher up there lecturing bored kids. Education is active, it's the kids doing the active learning. All a good competent  teacher does is provide the means, structure and guidance for them to do that. If you think teens aren't interested in anything to do with sexuality, you aren't around enough kids.

If you want to fix a problem, fix it. Don't fuck around and do little dances. Scare the shit out of them. It worked before, it will work again.

Like the Scared Straight program? How's that working out? Our prisons are filled...

What happened in the 60's was the same thing that happened under the Bela Kun government of Hungary. If you pander to people's hormones, they vote for you. The contraceptive pill is immaterial, and anti-humanist, just like the abortion movement is. It's not about giving women a choice, that's emotive crap used to trap weak minds with talking points. In reality it's about instilling people with the idea that you've liberated them so they'll give you a vote and you can grift them, control them, keep down the minorities as Margaret Sanger openly promoted as did Keynes, and rule unopposed. Again, that's where we're headed. Reason plays little part, and I'm fully willing to explore that if you wish.

Weak minds? Really? Holy christ, what misogynistic claptrap! I suppose giving the old ball and chain self determination over her own body is another step towards national disgrace, etc, leading to the fall of western civilization as we know it. I'd like to know how it's anti humanist for a woman to determine for herself and her family how many children she should have? Perhaps you never heard of diaphragms, condoms or earlier French letters? Wine soaked poultices? Vinegar douches? The contraceptive pill regulates fertility better than those methods. If you think it anti-humanist, then I have to question what your definition of  humanist really  is: being slave to one's biology? Being subordinate? Having no say in one's one's health and reproductive issues?   Birthing more children than one  can afford or reasonably take care of in an already overcrowded, resource stressed world? I'd never be unkind enough to refer to that way of thinking as being weak minded. Just someone whose been sold a bill of goods by others determined to keep her in her place, and good luck with that. No one is going back to 1950 and the sun will still rise tomorrow morning. Get used to it.

[SciFiAuthor]

You answered your own question.. You tell kids NOT to smoke, drink or take narcotics and they'll find a way to do it, because a proportion will want to know what all the fuss is about. Years ago I was step father to a girl her mother (my wife) is a doctor. Me and her mother used to regularly have a bottle of wine on the go for our evening meal, and at aged about 10, Hannah asked if she could have a sip. We watered down a thimble full of a white wine we were drinking, she took a sip, screwed her nose up and decided she didn't like it. At aged 11, she asked again to try a red wine. Again we watered down a thimble full and she took a sip, and once again she didn't like it. She'd also been introduced to sex/ reproduction education from aged about 3. She was very intelligent, and the last time I spoke to her when she was aged 17, she rolled her eyes recounting parties she'd been to where everyone in her peer group was smashed out of their heads on booze. She was tea total, and in her words, booze wasn't a big deal, just unpleasant to drink for her. Her way of saying, been there, done it, not interested. Would she have felt the same if her first encounter was at 16-17 and feeling pressured to get smashed with her friends? No idea. But she was confident enough to say no, because she was educated and had been given the facts, not made to feel she should be scared to death. Same with sex.

That's more a question of her being a smart girl, rather than anything you did. I know plenty that had perfect responsible upbringings and achieved advanced degrees yet couldn't keep their nose out of a pile of coke if their life depended on it. We are all different people, and responsibility comes with who you are, not necessarily by what you are told.

No it didn't. It really didn't. It just went unsaid. And a lot of girls' introduction to sex was from their older brothers, fathers, uncles, bosses who they were scared to death of. Sure, they felt shame, but for a completely different reason. Oh c'mon, don't. We both know our parents and grandparents don't represent the world. Prostitution wasn't invented in the last fifty years.  Know how many soldiers in WW1 were infected? 10000 soldiers were discharged because of STD's. They lost 7 million person days, there were official brothels on the front.

I don't know about the brother/sister/uncle thing. I don't think that was ever "a lot". That sounds a bit out there to me. But sure, people have always used prostitutes and molestation has always occurred. But the rates of it are disproportionately greater now. All stats show that, and even anthropological study on other cultures show it. The Islamic world, for example, sees far less numbers of certain crimes due to a cultural bias against those crimes. While they've got problems of their own, they are often problems we do not have, such as much greater incidences of spousal abuse. There's a reason for that, culture, and as we've modified our culture we've seen rises in certain cries and drops in others.

It is not being culturally honest with ourselves to try to obscure past lower crime rates to make excuses for our failures as a society today. Most people that make that argument do it because they don't like religion. Well, I've made it quite clear that I am at best an agnostic, though I grew up in a Roman Catholic family. I cannot in good conscience tell you that my atheistic, hedonistic ways are more conducive to a decent upbringing than my parent's old-fashioned catholic ways. In fact they're not. We should admit that, and address our social problems with a knowledge of all solutions, rather than creating taboos. We should also realize that the dumb in society are better off if they fear the hell out of something, whether it be a god, or a law, or a prison. Without it, they simply kick out babies and expect you to pay for it. Since you can't, your country borrows money to pay for it while their numbers increase. You tell me, at what point does that become unsustainable?

It isn't about pontificating (because scaring them to death certainly is anyway); It's about presenting the facts, discussing their opinions and letting them think about things. Or just send em away knowing jack, and not making informed choices.

Well, see, here's the problem: we continue to persist in lying to them. What's being taught as sex ed ain't relevant to most people for various reasons. We should be asking why our kids, by the time they get to the sex ed, already know more than the teacher. It's a lie to say that's not the case in the vast majority of kids. These kids know sex already, whether they've had it or not, and they get that knowledge from each other and the pop culture. Some 50 year-old teacher putting a condom on a cucumber and talking about how a disease can be transmitted by sex, all put in terms of "Vaginal intercourse" or "the difference between HSV-1 and HSV-2" without using the vernacular terms basically looks like a complete raving lunatic standing up there talking to a kid that already knows about it.

As I said, unless we're willing to put some grizzled old divorcees up there to tell them how it really is, unrestrained, this shit ain't going nowhere. And, well, the numbers bear that out. Sex-ed has done nothing but fail. We've had it for 40 years and have nothing meaningful in the numbers to show for it. Well, it's better to just scare the shit out of them. They'll understand later, just like we did.

As I said before; it's screwed up that there is seemingly no disgrace in having 14% of the adult population functionally illiterate, but there is hell to pay when Janet Jackson drops her tit out on TV. A girl shouldn't feel disgrace for being pregnat. Seriously? Have you been near a woman who is pregnant? Her hormones and head is all over the place, and what about the post natal depression? Keep kicking the bitch telling her how disgraceful she is, until she kills her self in the shame? Yep, that works.

Well, your method as it stands now isn't working worth a piss. I guess the progressive light at the end of the tunnel is that as we grow more "understanding" and ready to aid in suicide, we'll see a day where they can just consult a specialist in understanding and empathy to help them decide whether they want to head to the physician to get gassed. That seems to be the world you guys are building. I'd have simply advocated adjusting the culture back to a model where sex was seen as something you ought not do until you're ready and back it up with a good old fear of god. It worked better. And if it happened anyway and pregnancy occurred, well, we could afford to subsidize that. We can't afford to keep subsidizing them in the increasing numbers we do now; one glitch in the welfare system due to an economic downturn puts us in a position today that the very same people you're trying to understand begin to starve after three days of the food stamp card not working. That is not ideal. The culture must be targeted rather than putting band-aids on the problem after it occurred.

Sigh...SOME do..Not all. A lot of the reason is the very parents who get sanctimonious about teachers teaching sex education. If any mantra pisses me off more than 'Parents know best' I don't know it. Many parents are fucking ignorant, I know, I've met them. I've met women who thought twins came from shagging two different men in the same month!  I've met men who thought vasectomies stopped a man ejaculating.  If parents stream porn through their router and the kids see it aged 6, and then thinks that is what (and ONLY) what sex is, it's hardly any wonder by the time they reach 13 a lot are screwed up about their own feelings and thoughts.

It never did work, it won't now, and it won't in the future. I never respected anyone trying to scare me.

Sure, but you think a government-run school can do better? Again, we've had sex-ed for decades, without much to show for it. 

Oh really? So we shouldn't tote around smashed up cars to show the effects of drunk driving? I would assume, if you hope to be consistent, that you would not respect that because it's a scare tactic. Or how about climate change? That too is being combatted through widespread use of scare tactics. Let's explore that, shall we? Just where is fear appropriate to be used, and why.

[SciFiAuthor]

Are you sure about that? How many girls end up with surprise pregnancies because they and their partners thought pulling out was a contraceptive method because their friend, equally ignorant or innocent depending on your PoV, told them so. You see, that's why having a relationship with my son where he could tell me or ask me anything was wonderful. I've heard it all, and then some.  I also remember being 13 quite well. Two of my friends became pregnant.
So the solution is to do nothing. Give up, stop trying.  And if some people don't read an author's books, he should stop writing because of them, correct?

The solution is to target the cultural problem that's causing it. We leave that taboo and off limits, so after you're done talking to them about HPV and hoping to god that they remember what it is before it gets passed to them, they're going to go home and put on a movie that glorifies and idealizes sex in a way that sex really isn't. You tell me how that makes sense, but I will tell you that some actor using the F word and speaking in real-world vernacular, which you are prohibited from doing, has a greater rate of knowledge retention than a 50 year-old teacher with a cucumber does. 

I'm immersed in kids 8 hours a day. You would be amazed to find how, when you are ready to despair that they aren't listening, you discover later on they were, intently. It's an art and science to teach kids, particularly middle school ones. But never, ever assume they aren't listening because they're cracking jokes. They're kids, that's what they do, but when they're invested, they pay attention. And you don't give up because a few don't. I haven't yet stopped teaching fractions because not everyone gets it. I just try harder to find another approach to hook the others in.

Go see what they're doing at 18 just after graduation. A good place for that would be a pawn shop. Arrange to sit in one for an hour or two some time and see just where this all leads. You can teach successfully if the kid wants to be there. If they don't, well . . .

I'd suggest teaching fractions in terms of fractional sacks of pot. Color me cynical, but that's where most of the joke crackers will end up using the knowledge. I know, I know, you'd get fired. But, you know, I am complaining fundamentally about our failure to put things in terms that kids will truly understand.

Do you know why it's so important to teach sex ed? It's not because of the mechanics. A quick perusal of google will turn up any number of good sexuality websites. But the world is a more complicated place now. A  sex ed, or sexuality class is someplace that provides a safe atmosphere for kids to spout out all that ignorance without judgement and know that they will not be condescended to or lied to or in any way put down. A good curriculum will cover STD's, HIV/AIDS, risky sexual behaviour, hygiene, pregnancy and disease prevention, birth control, LGBT concerns, an overview of sexuality both medically and historically, social media, sexting, sexual abuse, predatory online behaviour. It's not a how to fuck guide, it's a systematic curriculum designed to take them through all these issues with enough time to do them justice, including opportunities for discussion because kids learn when they solve problems themselves.

Well, if it was taught effectively, we'd have something. It's not, it's usually just some teacher standing up there with the cucumber using non-vernacular terms and generally looking the idiot. As I said, the health teacher that taught sex-ed when I went to school was obviously gay and didn't seem credible when explaining to me what my member did.

But during my day we still had one relic left. The girls self-policed and called each other sluts, and that seemed to be the most effective anti-sex measure in school. Now, of course, in the interest of equality the formerly male domain of promiscuity being glorious has moved to the girls. I don't think there was a subsequent improvement.

First of all, teaching is not 'a talk'. It's not a teacher up there lecturing bored kids. Education is active, it's the kids doing the active learning. All a good competent  teacher does is provide the means, structure and guidance for them to do that. If you think teens aren't interested in anything to do with sexuality, you aren't around enough kids.

Sex teaching is a talk. It's a very construed one at that, and very limited; I guarantee you can't talk realistically about homosexual sex to a gay male kid. You cannot prepare them for what awaits them in the gay bars, you can't do it even in the slightest. All you can do is tell them that it's ok to be gay, but only after they've outed themselves in front of a bunch of homophobic football players.

Kids are interested in having sex, sure, and some might be interested in talking about it the same way as one might enjoy watching Real Rex on HBO, or the novelty of a teacher saying the word "vagina." But a teacher not using the sex vernacular as it is in the world isn't going to be as interesting. Drop the F bomb every so often and you might have more of an effect, I would think. But see, you can't do that, it's against the rules, and thusly your talk is watered down.

Like the Scared Straight program? How's that working out? Our prisons are filled...

Our prisons are filled because we've illegalized everything except the kitchen sink and invariably put enormous disproportionate sentences on every little thing. Further, have you ever watched the scared straight program in action? Nothing but kid gloves, again because of the rules. Lastly, prisons aren't particularly scary places. When you have a huge section of society that wants to be in prison, has built a subculture out of it, and glorifies it in the movies, you're going to have a bad effect from it.

Now me, if I were to create a scared straight program, I'd put the potential offender in a cell with four huge muscle-bound actors sold to be prisoners all looking at the kid saying "You sure got a pretty mouth". Then rescue them. That'll hit home, lie that it is.

"Weak minds? Really? Holy christ, what misogynistic claptrap!

There's one of those catch phrases. You're supposed to bandy the word "misogynistic" around when confronted with a male that may not be pro-choice. In reality, it can't be misogynistic by definition, since not all women are pro-choice and not all pro-choice women are ignorant of the ideological underpinnings and beginnings of their movement. In fact, some of them are very much comfortable with it, despite its eugenic beginnings.

I suppose giving the old ball and chain self determination over her own body is another step towards national disgrace, etc, leading to the fall of western civilization as we know it.

55 million abortions since Roe vs. Wade and no real social benefit seen other than the degradation of humanity to arbitrary terms such as "non-viable". I wouldn't have a problem with this as I personally am not interested in telling people what they can and can't do, but I wont ignore a problem when I see one. The problem is that those 55 million abortions are a direct result of the eugenic ideology of Margaret Sanger, who promoted the legalization of abortion as a method of keeping the half-wit races, as she termed them, from breeding too much. Abortion today remains disproportionately skewed towards minorities. Well, it's your baby, as it were, feel free to defend the racist ideology that spawned your movement and continues to show an effect today.

I'd like to know how it's anti humanist for a woman to determine for herself and her family how many children she should have? Perhaps you never heard of diaphragms, condoms or earlier French letters? Wine soaked poultices? Vinegar douches? The contraceptive pill regulates fertility better than those methods. If you think it anti-humanist, then I have to question what your definition of  humanist really  is: being slave to one's biology? Being subordinate? Having no say in one's one's health and reproductive issues?   Birthing more children than one  can afford or reasonably take care of in an already overcrowded, resource stressed world? I'd never be unkind enough to refer to that way of thinking as being weak minded. Just someone whose been sold a bill of goods by others determined to keep her in her place, and good luck with that. No one is going back to 1950 and the sun will still rise tomorrow morning. Get used to it.

I'm all for contraception. I'm also all for accountability. You have a special right that I do not in regards to escaping accountability. You can end a pregnancy. I cannot. That has led to contradictory law, a fetus is not a human if the mother murders it. It is a human if someone else does and has resulted in murder charges. How does that mesh? Is it a person covered by equal protection or not?

If we're going to go the route we have, we need to talk about it in terms of how it really is. We do not need to take the racial aspect of abortion off the table because it's inconvenient, and we really need to define a person covered by rights and law. That cannot ever be arbitrary, or else we'll slip down the slope and start asking if born infants are non-viable and abortable as Obama's chief science advisor famously asked, or the next step, the retarded. And most importantly, you consummate pro-choicers need own up to the history and ideological underpinnings of your movement and be open about it, or it will come back to haunt you when some future generation starts questioning your then old-fashioned and conservative approach.

[UnscreenedCaller]

I don't know about the brother/sister/uncle thing. I don't think that was ever "a lot". That sounds a bit out there to me. But sure, people have always used prostitutes and molestation has always occurred. But the rates of it are disproportionately greater now. All stats show that, and even anthropological study on other cultures show it. The Islamic world, for example, sees far less numbers of certain crimes due to a cultural bias against those crimes. While they've got problems of their own, they are often problems we do not have, such as much greater incidences of spousal abuse. There's a reason for that, culture, and as we've modified our culture we've seen rises in certain cries and drops in others.

I do know the statistics because it's my job to teach young children how to recognize and defend themselves against sexual predatory behaviour. According to the CDC, it's 1 in 4 girls are reported to be sexually abused at home, while it's 1 in 6 for boys. These numbers are low, since much more sexually abusive incidents in the home go unreported. To make it clear, that means at least 25% of the female population in this country and roughly 18% of the male have been sexually abused by someone they know at home. I'd say that's a lot by anyone's standards. Children are abused by someone they know and trust: 30% by a family member, 60% by someone known but unrelated and 10% by strangers. Being abused leads to promiscuity in teenaged girls because of complex self-esteem issues, as well as a higher than average incidence of sexually abused boys who go on to abuse. Again, this is one facet of a comprehensive sex ed program and, in my opinion, one of the most important and it begins as early as 4 years old in my school, when the statistical age for sexual abuse begins to rise. I don't subscribe to the 'throwaway' notion that these kids will just end up being abused so let's do nothing about it because it might cost money. It costs more money to do a lot of idiotic things in this country, but our children must come first.

[SciFiAuthor]

I do know the statistics because it's my job to teach young children how to recognize and defend themselves against sexual predatory behaviour. According to the CDC, it's 1 in 4 girls are reported to be sexually abused at home, while it's 1 in 6 for boys. These numbers are low, since much more sexually abusive incidents in the home go unreported. To make it clear, that means at least 25% of the female population in this country and roughly 18% of the male have been sexually abused by someone they know at home. I'd say that's a lot by anyone's standards. Children are abused by someone they know and trust: 30% by a family member, 60% by someone known but unrelated and 10% by strangers. Being abused leads to promiscuity in teenaged girls because of complex self-esteem issues, as well as a higher than average incidence of sexually abused boys who go on to abuse. Again, this is one facet of a comprehensive sex ed program and, in my opinion, one of the most important and it begins as early as 4 years old in my school, when the statistical age for sexual abuse begins to rise. I don't subscribe to the 'throwaway' notion that these kids will just end up being abused so let's do nothing about it because it might cost money. It costs more money to do a lot of idiotic things in this country, but our children must come first.

I would put it much higher for girls. About half of the women I've been involved with have told me about some sort of abuse they went through when they were young. I found it shocking that it was that prevalent, but it seems to be. I can't speak with authority on the matter, but I did notice a lot of what they told me involved people that weren't immediate family per se, but close to the family. Neighbors, cousins, etc. I don't know how well that's represented in the statistics, meaning that if the ground rules are abuse in the home, then cases out of the home may go unnoticed. It all depends on how the stat is set up.

But again, I don't think the classroom is the place for that. I would strongly be inclined to suggest the psychologist's office over any kind of public discussion of the matter; that would seem to me to lead to even more potential problems, just the same as it would to "out" a gay kid in the interest of discussion in the class room.

I've also been left with a rather sour taste in my mouth over teachers these days anyway. I don't mean to tar all with one brush, there are some saints out there teaching, but there are an awful lot of teachers that care more about the NEA than they do about the kids. Politics also slips in; I was aghast recently to get a look at what they're giving kids to read in literature and creative writing classes. There are things, terrible pieces of lit, put in due to political correctness rather than any measure of their social importance or merit. Other very important pieces are left out for similar reasons. Well, that brings up ethics. Is it right to publically fund something that advances a specific political agenda? No, such a thing is not ethical. Yet it happens.

If we could eliminate special interests such as the NEA from interfering with the actual act of education, eliminate passing the idiots anyway as some states do, eliminate political indoctrination from the curriculum, and REALLY favor the smart kids, I'd be willing to fund education above anything else in the country. But as one of those smart kids that was utterly failed by the system in the 1990's, and with no indication that it's improved, I remain skeptical of anything other than standard subjects being taught. At this stage, I'd even eliminate all sports from school because it's contributing to a society of lotus-eaters that believe the superbowl to be more important than the presidential election. Well, when most of our stadiums are publically-funded despite sports teams being uber-profitable, and politicians get elected on such spending, then there might just be a huge systemic problem from the school-level all the way to congress. Of course it's no surprise that the entire chain is publically funded!

[SciFiAuthor]

I should note too that I think this prevalence of sex abuse is a modern phenomenon. While it did happen previous to the 1960's, I doubt it was the problem it is today. If I were to go back to my grandmother and ask if she'd ever heard of such a thing happening through the grapevine, she might tell me of a vague rumor. If the idea was suggested to my grandfather, he'd have mumbled something in Cajun and grabbed a rope and started looking for the offender.

We're literally bombarded with sexual suggestiveness now. That increases the rate at which terrible things happen, and when you surrounded a sex offender with stimulus, then that sex offender is encouraged to go out and offend. Well, there was a time when trousers were seen as suggestive on women. There was a reason for that; the old-timers weren't as stupid as you guys might think they were.

Now I'm not saying that we go back to never showing an ankle. I'm just merely saying that if we want to be honest with ourselves, we're going to have to admit that people in the past had their own way of dealing with this stuff, and sometimes it was more effective than what we're doing today.

But, see, everything we do today hinges on not being honest. Whether it's a sex-ed class or a political debate, it is such that we present a front, rather than reality. You can't tell a gay kid in sex-ed about risk fucking an HIV+ partner, despite it being a big thing these days. A politician can't get away with using the F word, even though the vast majority of the population uses it. It's all just a series of little games we play, taboos and unsaids, that let us weave a narrative that we present to the kids and hope to Jesus that it works. That's exactly what the old "catholic" method did too, but seemingly with more success.

[Yorkshire pud]

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. 

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.

There's lots of other stuff, but I've said my piece and stand by it.

[UnscreenedCaller]

I would put it much higher for girls. About half of the women I've been involved with have told me about some sort of abuse they went through when they were young. I found it shocking that it was that prevalent, but it seems to be. I can't speak with authority on the matter, but I did notice a lot of what they told me involved people that weren't immediate family per se, but close to the family. Neighbors, cousins, etc. I don't know how well that's represented in the statistics, meaning that if the ground rules are abuse in the home, then cases out of the home may go unnoticed. It all depends on how the stat is set up.

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

But again, I don't think the classroom is the place for that. I would strongly be inclined to suggest the psychologist's office over any kind of public discussion of the matter; that would seem to me to lead to even more potential problems, just the same as it would to "out" a gay kid in the interest of discussion in the class room.

The classroom is exactly the place for that, under the classroom teacher's controlled moderation. 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've also been left with a rather sour taste in my mouth over teachers these days anyway. I don't mean to tar all with one brush, there are some saints out there teaching, but there are an awful lot of teachers that care more about the NEA than they do about the kids. Politics also slips in; I was aghast recently to get a look at what they're giving kids to read in literature and creative writing classes. There are things, terrible pieces of lit, put in due to political correctness rather than any measure of their social importance or merit. Other very important pieces are left out for similar reasons. Well, that brings up ethics. Is it right to publically fund something that advances a specific political agenda? No, such a thing is not ethical. Yet it happens.

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

If we could eliminate special interests such as the NEA from interfering with the actual act of education, eliminate passing the idiots anyway as some states do, eliminate political indoctrination from the curriculum, and REALLY favor the smart kids, I'd be willing to fund education above anything else in the country. But as one of those smart kids that was utterly failed by the system in the 1990's, and with no indication that it's improved, I remain skeptical of anything other than standard subjects being taught. At this stage, I'd even eliminate all sports from school because it's contributing to a society of lotus-eaters that believe the superbowl to be more important than the presidential election. Well, when most of our stadiums are publically-funded despite sports teams being uber-profitable, and politicians get elected on such spending, then there might just be a huge systemic problem from the school-level all the way to congress. Of course it's no surprise that the entire chain is publically funded!

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.

[Yorkshire pud]

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

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

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

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.

^^^^ This..it articulates things far better than I could. Then again, I'm not a teacher and would be guessing at best what the job entails.