2

i messed up in this thread

but i know one thing

condoms suck

12/21/2006 9:17:21 PM

Quote :

""Absolutely not," Horn said. "The Bush administration does not believe the government should be regulating or stigmatizing the behavior of adults."""

Best quote of the story.

12/22/2006 12:18:33 AM

^ my thoughts exactly.

glad someone picked up on it finally

12/22/2006 12:09:06 PM

Quote :

"38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women "

obviously not a random sample

/thread

12/22/2006 11:32:16 PM

even married I still practice abstinence as all good christians should until they are ready to procreate for the sole purpose of making a child whom will worship our lord as the one and only true God

12/23/2006 12:44:28 AM

One look at your photo gallery made that post 3x funnier.

12/23/2006 12:51:14 AM

I'd say that people have less pre-martial sex than any other animal.

wait

what was the question?

12/26/2006 12:06:52 AM

i dont want you people procreating

12/26/2006 1:29:06 AM

we're all whores!

12/26/2006 1:41:29 AM

Back to a page one discussion...

I don't think there's a real issue with middle schoolers having sex with one another. I think most middle schoolers that have sex aren't doing it with other middle schoolers. And I've tried to be liberal and accepting of that fact, but no, it's absolutely unacceptable for 11 and 12-year-olds to be fair game for high school-aged "children" and even older adults.

And I think a lot of it comes back to parenting. My parents kept it real with me as far as being honest with me and protecting me from all the bullshit. They wanted me to understand sex in a realistic way. The best illustration of this was when I was invited to a birthday party at age 8 where they were going to show Pretty Woman. The other girl's dad didn't understand why my mom had a problem with it. He said, "It's not like it's that bad..." And my mom said, "Exactly. It's not that bad. It's an adult fairy tale, and she's grown out of fairy tales." I was humiliated that she argued with him, and I had to go to bed early in another room at that party, but she was right....if you're gonna expose your kids to sex, at least show them the real deal.

[Edited on December 27, 2006 at 4:47 PM. Reason : sss]

12/27/2006 4:44:56 PM

high schools shouldn't be teaching abstinence-only if 95% of the kids won't follow that advice

12/27/2006 5:54:22 PM

^what percentage of kids must follow the advice to make it worth saying?

12/27/2006 6:15:51 PM

You realize that the objection here is against abstinence-only programs, right?

12/27/2006 6:31:27 PM

Yes.

12/27/2006 8:33:50 PM

Quote :

"...it said that women were reaching sexual maturity earlier and earlier (~10 yrs old in some cases now as opposed to early teens many years ago). As for the cause, I haven't the faintest clue. There's plenty of room to speculate about additives in our food, but it'd just be base speculation."

My dad's an OB/GYN doctor, and he says that the reason is because nutrition has substantially improved. Women are ovulating sooner because they are achieving the required level of fat deposits sooner. I didn't ask him what the biochemical mechanism for that was, but I'm guessing that from a biological stand-point it means that the woman now has enough nutrients stored away that can be put into her breast milk, and therefore she can begin rearing a child. Just thought I'd throw my $0.02 out there.

As for the main topic, it's an interesting study but it also kinda feels like the findings are of the "NO SHIT" variety. People I knew (or at least knew of, didn't really know too many people personally) as far back as seventh grade were getting some, so it isn't as if this is news to me. And while abstinence is the only guaranteed way to stay off unwanted pregnancies and STD's, it's extremely unrealistic to expect all (if any) teenagers to adhere to an abstinence plan. As has loosely been said, sex is a fundamental instinct that is hardwired into all human beings. So the next logical step is to simply teach teenagers how to have sex safely and intelligently.

12/27/2006 8:38:44 PM

^^If you understand that Nerdchick was talking about abstinence-only programs, then why'd you ask this stupid question:

Quote :

"TULIPlovr: ^what percentage of kids must follow the advice to make it worth saying?"

?

12/27/2006 11:26:02 PM

Quote :

"Aficionado: If you read the article, it pretty much says "nothing has changed since 1940, either". [quote]The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past."

[/quote]

That would mean women who came of age in the 1960s, not the grown women of the 1940s.

12/28/2006 12:09:15 AM

This looks like a great example of ostrichism. Please teach abstinence-only regardless of the piss poor results the programs achieve. Meanwhile, I'll bury my head in the sand and pretend it works...

12/28/2006 9:37:38 AM

Quote :

"My dad's an OB/GYN doctor, and he says that the reason is because nutrition has substantially improved. Women are ovulating sooner because they are achieving the required level of fat deposits sooner."

more fat deposits sooner in life = improved nutrition?
sounds like it's related to our obesity problem

12/28/2006 10:01:02 AM

I'm sure it's more than just lipids. Vitamins A and K are fat soluble, for instance. Like I said, my dad didn't explain it to me in full. But the point is that girls are entering into womanhood at earlier ages because their bodies are accumulating and stockpiling nutrients at faster rates due to the better quality of food today.

12/28/2006 11:37:28 AM

^^^But for many of those in favor of abstinence-only programs, there is a moral objection to the method that gets better results.

So to them, no, results aren't the first thing they look for. They believe it's wrong to implicitly encourage, or at least sanction, pre-marital sex by teaching them BC/std-prevention methods. Even if they recognize that their preferred method gives poorer results, it doesn't force them to change their opinion on what should be done.

12/28/2006 1:38:33 PM

Boo hoo. We should do what works, not what some people think is "moral" due to superstition or religion. Abstinence-only policies have resulted in untold agony across the world. People need knowledge and education about sex, not this crap.

12/28/2006 1:56:46 PM

so we should cave into the 5% of the population who doesn't get it on?

12/28/2006 2:54:10 PM

^^^Parents can opt their children out of sex education if they have any objection to it, moral or otherwise.

So...problem solved.

Unless the problem is that you don't want other people's children receiving comprehensive sex education.

That just makes you an ass.

12/28/2006 3:20:29 PM

Quote :

"Unless the problem is that you don't want other people's children receiving comprehensive sex education. That just makes you an ass.social conservative"

12/28/2006 3:39:04 PM

oh shit, it just hit my eyes that the topic says

pre-marTIal sex!

12/28/2006 4:12:17 PM

Google gives "pre-martial" 54,500 hits.

I guess it's a word.

12/28/2006 4:41:41 PM

martial=pertaining to military

I fall into that 95% who boned down before joining the military.

12/29/2006 12:28:45 AM