There are times when I marvel at how really uninformed I am. I was out at a club with my younger sister the other day, in a place where they distribute free condoms to the customers, in where I came across the first Female Condom I had ever seen. Now I think of myself as pretty up to date on these things and I looked at it and said "What the heck do you do with this?" It did not come with instructions on use or anything like that, like I was supposed to all ready know. Also within the last year or two I've come to find out many things about condoms and such that aren't made readily available in sex ed classes... like that a couple should masturbate with protection also instead of just during intercourse. Until recently I was totally unaware that there was protection for cunnilingus such as dental dams or plastic wrap.
Also there are all kinds for birth control out now besides the pill. Again I went with my little sister to her GYN to discuss what birth control she was going to use after her baby was born. They have a huge chart with various types of pills, intra-uterin devices, cervical caps, diaphrams, shots, a cervical ring and even a "patch". Who knew? Its nice to know though that when my daughter gets a little older I can go get something installed in her that will last her until she's out of my house or I can guarentee that she's covered by going and slapping a patch on her every week.
Now I haven't been out of high school all that long, is there anyone who's recently graduated who could tell me wether this kind of stuff is included in sex ed classes now?
Oh, Oh!!!! **waves a hand in the air** well, I'm in my last year but...yes they do inform us all about that. We had to do many projects on how those forms of Birth control were properly used and all the side effects (weight gain and stuff.) Even with all this information, there is still a large amount of young girls going out there and um..."having fun" without proper protection. Other than that, everything you said is indeed included.
Posts: 98 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't think Canada counts. The US is #1 at having their heads up their own butts when it comes to sex. How much the kids get taught is frequently at the teacher's discretion..and those teachers come under intense fire from parents and the school board. I had the good fortune of having a teacher being consumed a day at a time by MS.. he was much more pragmatic than most.
Higher Ed does better ..but alot of people never make it there.
The pill + the condom + blood tests are still about as good as it gets for prevention. (put on a female condom sometime, look in the mirror and convince yourself you still want to do you)
Of course there could be an HIV type disease out there that there's no test for yet but nothing worth doing in life is without risk.
Well its nice to know that these types of things are included now. So is there such a thing as adult sex ed now too? I'm sure there are many people from my age group and older that don't have a clue, especially if they never got the benefit of college.
BTW, I to this day still haven't figured out how those today sponge thingies were supposed to work...
Masturbate with protection? Good night what a hassle. As for "dental dams" ... do they even calculate the risk that you might inhale the ceran-wrap and choke? Honestly, monogamy and fidelity has its inconveniences, but these disease-prevention safeguards for the promiscuous sound FAR more inconvenient. Can you believe that some American teachers are so backward that they refuse to tell students that in faithful observance of traditional marriage that you *don't* have to shrink-wrap everything in order to have sex safely?
I only wish that movies that depicted sex acts would depict the use of the "safe sex" safeguards -- showing just how awkward and unsexy it is to barricade yourself with plastic during what is supposed to be an intimate act. What a joke.
Well, actually, there are times when the extra clean yet faithful may need to to stop and "wrap" themselves. Like when one partner has a simple yeast or bacterial infection in an embarrasing area. Barrier methods shouldn't be counted on prevent transmission, but they can cut down on the risk. Then it's your call on which is more annoying.
Risk of passing a regular ol' yeast infection back and forth....something every married couple should know about.
Agreed. Cold sores, yeast infections, and a number of other problems can create obstacles to intimacy, and people should know what methods are out there for protection. How else do you suppose that I would have known about what it feels like to do it with protection? The problem I was complaining about is that movies and TV show people indulging in risky behaviors without protection OR consequences.
My two main complaints with the sex ed programs advocated by leftists is NOT that they present options to children, but that they
1. Fail to do justice to traditional marriage as a method of minimizing disease & maximizing social and economic well-being;
2. Fail to teach children the meaning of CONSENT, the laws of the state regarding sex and minors, and the ethical rationale behind those laws;
and MOST IMPORTANTLY
3. UTTERLY FAIL to provide adequate information & resources regarding rape and sexual abuse.
In an earlier thread I discussed what I thought would be a responsible sex-ed course; my impression from the responses is that some people here were upset that providing all of that information to children would make them less vulnerable to sexual exploitation. I think the terms were that it was "not the place of the state" to discourage children from having sex. I find this position abhorrent.
[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 07, 2002).]
Locus, Yes, the statistic most cited is that most MARRIAGES end in divorce, but if you break it down by PEOPLE instead of by marriage, you get the following:
Even today, a majority of Americans get married and stay married, and a majority of those people who remain married, are faithful to their spouse.
Besides, are you seriously advocating that monogamous husbands and wives use condoms, dental dams, and rubber gloves 100% of the time that they are together, "just in case" the other has been unfaithful?
If so, I think that's even less realistic than teaching people to only have sex in marriage.
Finally, how in the world is anything that I have said premised on the myth that men stray more than women? (Actually, that may be a true myth, since it could be statistically shown with cameras in the men's rooms that male homosexuals are more promiscuous than female lesbians, so unless female heterosexuals were MORE promiscuous than male heterosexuals, the males overall would win the promiscuity contest.)
quote:1. Fail to do justice to traditional marriage as a method of minimizing disease & maximizing social and economic well-being," The trouble is it doesn't.
On the contrary, it has been known for decades that it does, statistically, for men. Recently it has been shown to hold true for women as well, if you include factors such as alcoholism, other drug use, & a few other factors.
I'm suggesting that at some point in life you just gotta dive in. Where that point may be is an individuals choice.
You're looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope.
The people who get married and remain faithful long term...do have an advantage over "players" but it's not the marriage that provides them with that.
It's because of the type of people who can hold up the commitment long term also have other distinguishing characteristics.
Now then ..the sexual myth thing ..the percentages of true monogamous marriages ..the kind that last til death does them part..are almost nil. That's why "monogamous marriages" aren't total protection. People stray(in large numbers) and often times the relationship doesn't break up.
(FYI ..sex-ed does put forward abstinence as the sure fire method of avoiding STD's and unwanted pregnancy)
quote:(FYI ..sex-ed does put forward abstinence as the sure fire method of avoiding STD's and unwanted pregnancy)
What a terrible lie to teach to children. Tell a rape victim that abstinence prevents STDs and unwanted pregnancy?
I will bet you dollars to donuts that more people have gotten STDs through rape, than through the unknown dalliances of a spouse that they were faithful to. And to my knowledge, it is not even possible for someone to become pregnant because her *spouse* was unfaithful.
[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 07, 2002).]
well, I graduated High School in '99, and I can safely say that their was little to no decent information given in Sex ed where I live. The curriculum was 'abstinence only' and 'use a condom if you have to do it anyway'. There was no other information given. Luckily, my mom was a bit more thorough.
I must admit, though, that I am male, so all those female contraceptives were of no relevance to me, but as I understand it, the girls' curriculum was much the same as mine.
Pete, "traditional marriage" as you put it is not a legitimate from of birth control. I think monogamy is what you're getting at and really how often does that happen anymore? And I don't really think it has anything to do with promiscuity though I'm sure that's the case for at least some people... most people just aren't happy anymore I think.
As to your other two points, I whole heartedly agree. As to "not the place of the state" I am somewhat mortified by the concept. Stating that some of our members are upset by a lack of vulnerability in our children is disturbing to say the least and yet I have to agree that some things, as in readiness to have sex, should be taken on a case by case basis and so therefore should not be governed by the state. I'd much prefer to give my kids ALL of the information and let them make their decision accordingly.
The workshops are a good idea though. From what I understand colleges are having safer sex seminars now that demonstrate proper usage and such but personally I think by that time its pretty much too late. A person is either going to already know by then or just isn't going to care for the most part.
And YES Pete, masturbate with protection. The health care professional that we spoke with suggested that men should masturbate within the confines of a condom (by putting lube on the inside... which seems the silliest thing in the world to me) and that women should put condoms over any hardware they may want to use and/or barriers over themselves. I guess the theory behind this is to cut off possible contamination due to bad hygiene (i.e. not washing hands/other things afterward or somesuch), mis-shots (with partnered masturbation or accidentally contaminating matresses/other porous surfaces that can potentially spread the infection to others) and cross contamination for women which can cause nasty infections. I'm not really sure that's its applicable to prevent pregnancy though except with mis-shots.
You know, I've beent trying really hard not to comment on this thread... Public policy on this sort of thing isn't really going to affect me very much, since I know that my children are going to avoid any public socialization like that the same as any Amish child would.
But "traditional marriage" is alive and well in the culture that I am a part of. Monogamy is the rule in probably 90% of the relationships that I am personally familiar with. No, it isn't a good form of birth control, but then, my people are fond of children. Lots of them. My guess, as an unmarried man, is that I will have close to five of them. Not too worried about birth control.
quote:Pete, "traditional marriage" as you put it is not a legitimate from of birth control.
I did not tout Traditional Marriage as a form of birth control, Luny. This is what I said: minimizing disease & maximizing social and economic well-being". How do you read "birth control" into that? The topic of this thread is not only birth control, but PROTECTION.
quote: I think monogamy is what you're getting at and really how often does that happen anymore?
If I meant monogamy, I would have said monogamy, but it's not that far off, so let's run with it. Monogamy may not occur often in some social circles, but it's far from dead, even in this day and age. It is certainly more common than long-term same-sex romances, which some on this board seem to think need to be promoted by the state.
[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 11, 2002).]
It sure seems that many who attend sex ed classes claim, afterwards, that they didn't learn much. This claim leads to the proposition that we need "better" sex ed classes. A huge problem with this is the obvious problem that so many high school Americans seem unable to learn much in any gov't school classes. There is also the issue of "when". At age 17? or 15? or 13? I recall, 25 years ago, hearing about how some 40% of the girls who went to my junior high (7-8th grades) were not virgins when they left. My high school buddy (and fellow virgin) were quite depressed about this. But I don't want any gov't teacher even trying to teach my daughter, when she's 13, about sex ed.
Another social tendency that is negative is the attack on faithful marriage, and no sex out of such a relationship, because there is so much failure.
Neither Locus nor others have a proposed a serious alternative ideal. Of course, there has also been no evidence that the real world striving, and most prolly failing, to achieve that ideal would be better than a striving for a society of "no sex outside of faithful marriage" ideal, or even the mixed up ideals society currently has.
Different states have different sex ed curriculums. I haven't heard of a sex ed teaching program which has significantly reduced teen pregnancy, nor teen disease. I'd guess none do, because the true aid they give in information, is negatively balanced by implicit/ explicit encouragement to have more sex. And obviously there is a tradeoff about being safe/ per session, and the number of sessions.
The fact that (except for the wonderful funny Naked Gun?) there has been so little film coverage of really having protected sex, in a Hollywood industry that justifies it near-porno sex scenes as "real drama", is particularly damaging to the pro-education cause. Insofar as films describe and then influence the culture, especially the teen-pop culture, the unprotected sex scenes are encouraging an unproteded sex culture.
quote:Neither Locus nor others have a proposed a serious alternative ideal. Of course, there has also been no evidence that the real world striving, and most prolly failing, to achieve that ideal would be better than a striving for a society of "no sex outside of faithful marriage" ideal, or even the mixed up ideals society currently has.
One thing that I proposed was providing every teenage girl with a high-quality functional vibrator & instructions, and explaining to her that she can provide herself 100x the pleasure that any of the pimply self-absorbed males can provide, without any of the risks of pregnancy or disease.
Your response, Luny?
I would also have the kids taught the honest stats, the socioeconomic reality of traditional vs. single parenting, both for the child and for the mothers.