I know im sexy, but you didn’t have to make a thread about it.
And you spelt my name wrong!
Edd
yeat you put in the emotion desighned to simbolise shock
No, and that’s the sad thing
This is where I got all my sex-ed information, very informative and unbiased-
http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66601
For me, sex-ed was in sixth grade, which is age 10-11. It was relatively new to my area, with the boys separated from the girls. This was probably to keep attention on the subject matter more than anything else. Mostly the teaching was about the anatomy and biology. These are your sex organs (inside and out) and this is how they work.
I don’t think it’s a public school’s job to encourage us to have sex or not. What my class didn’t cover were sexually transmitted diseases and other things that happen when you have casual and/or unprotected sex.
My school was not teaching abstinence. They were also not teaching free love. They just taught how the organs worked, and left the rest up to us, and hopefully our parents. Giving out condoms as part of a class sounds like a very bad idea. Having them available at the nurses’ or health office yes, but not like giving out free samples to everyone. That’s kind of like the school saying “Here, take this home and don’t use it.”
To me, schools should provide the information. They cannot make you make intelligent choices no matter how much material is covered. In my case, I think the curriculum was appropriate, as we were sixth graders. In such a class for older kids, it should cover all the things that can happen. What better way to encourage abstinence than to teach about VD, HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy and all the other stuff that can happen as a result of not abstaining?
The incidence of getting STDs from unprotected sex it not a number that should matter too much. If you’re going to roll the dice like that, just assume it’s one in six, if you know what I mean. Or a 100% chance of taking stupid risks. Do I sound like an old fart? All of this makes sense to me now…
To spite the system you might want to read up on the Health Topics at Planned Parenthood. There’s a good set of topics and a good Q/A section.
That’s bunk about HIV going through condoms. Yes the virus is small and is small enough to go through a condom. But the virus doesn’t exist on its own. It’s inside blood and semen and other fluids. Stop those fluids and the virus stays with those fluids.
Condoms work greater than 25% of the time and HIV doesn’t go through condoms - a mythconception promoted by people of a certain disposition (not wanting to start a religious argument, see?).
when I was a teen there was no sex information whatsoever in school (that was in the early sixties). very bad!!!
A measure for progress was that teaching about that became normal. Is progress going backwards? I am simply baffled that schools do indulge in moralistic warping of facts 
. (I mean: moral is important, and love is not a consumer good … but being dogmatic is criminal : how many people die because condoms are supposed to be “morally” off limits?)
hey john ,we are having sex ed in a few days
and when im in most of my classes i tend to have this kinda drunken slur (imagine jack sparrow but deeper) but i speak really nteligently ,if the give us bunk on the whole hiv through rubbers ,im gunna quote you in this drunken slur ,and they will lose credibillity
Weirdo.
whore
That’s not worded quite right. Let me fix that.
There, that’s better.
Haha someone told me their CAT was addicted to crack! So I said, “Kitty crack Whore and I don’t care!” 
ask the person why they have crack lying around the house.
Sex education, circa 1966… Sandra from the grade 8 class who would show the boys ‘stuff’ for a quarter/ Mr. xx, the metal-shop teacher, who was the resident sex ed expert and if you ever had to listen to his (yucky) sex ed lecture (a.k.a. his own personal values), could turn off a rabbit’s interest in sex/ the original Emma Peel for whom I am eternally grateful.
The “abstinence only” vs. “here is how to do it” debate is much more complicated than what is being presented here. Contraception and desease prevention are two different things and require two different paths of logic.
With regards to the prophylactic (desease preventing) qualities of condoms: Condoms are 99.something percent effective when used properly. They tend to have a high failure rate - not from product failure (such as perforations in the membrane) but from misuse. Ask anyone who has longtime experience using a condom if it has ever slipped off during the sexual act. Most likely, the answer will be “yes”. Over time, “operator error” mishaps will always happen. This gives condoms a kind of Russian roulette quality. While condoms can be effective, they are often “sold” in Sex Ed as being a foolproof, completely safe method. Considering the everyday outcomes, it is irresponsible to promote condoms as providing “100% safe sex”. Sex is inherently risky behavior and the risk incurred is on a sliding scale - depending on partner choice and safety methods employed. The fact is that abstinence, while ignored by many, is still the only way to have 100% safety with regard to desease and pregnancy. As such, despite the snickers from the audience, abstinence should be at least part of the program.
Here is an analogy. Abstinence is 100% safe. Sex is always risky (with the risk on a sliding scale). Driving at the speed limit is safe (admittedly, not 100%) while speeding is risky (with the risk on a sliding scale). Should Drivers’ Educaton programs teach kids how to drive a car more safely at 100MPH? After all, we know many kids will exceed the speed limit. Will teaching them to drive more safely at 100 MPH reduce or increase traffic accidents? Of course, the anwer is “both”. It may prevent a few accidents by kids who were already going to drive at 100 MPH. It may also increase accidents by kids who were given a false sense of confidence to engage in risks that might not have otherwise been taken.
On another note, have you ever wondered how it is that in this age of contraception (available free at many jr. high schools) that out-of-wedlock births are higher than at any time in American history? Many people promote contraception as the ultimate answer to unwanted births. While contraception seems to prevent births among certain individuals, it seems to increase unplanned births in the general population. It is not hard to see why. Contraception launched the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. Once pre-marital sex became accepted behavior, a lot if it happened without the benefit of contraception. Unless contraception is used faithfully 100% of the time, unplanned births will rise in the general population. When teenage girls are asked “how did you get pregnant”, they often respond with things like “I thought we had broken up, so I stopped taking the pill. Then he came around again”. With no offense intended to our school-age readers, teenage kids can’t be relied upon to drive under the speed limit all the time, -or- complete their homework all the time -or- make their beds all the time, etc. Why do we think there will be 100% compliance with regard to contraception? Without 100% compliance, unplanned births will rise in the general population. Given that single motherhood is the single biggest correlator to predicting proverty, we have the uncomfortable fact that contraception (by vastly increasing all sexual activity and therefore increasing out-of-wedlock, teenage births) is prime driver of poverty. Given all this, what is the “responsible” education message that should be delivered by a school? The anwer isn’t all that clear.
Other issues concern religious belief. Many faiths belive that pre-marital sex is wrong. Here is a philosophical question: Should schools be instructing (and therefore promoting) behavior that is against the moral values that the parents are trying to instill? Many people give a knee-jerk “yes” or “no” to this answer. However, there is no easy answer to this one. It pits the duty (and right) of the parents to raise their children “responsibly” (arguably, abstinence is the single most responsible behavior) versus the duty of the govenment to protect/promote public health (as they define it). Remember, abstinence is compatible with both traditional religious morals and public health. Contraceptive/prophylatic use is only partially compatible with promoting public health (see above arguement on the negative effects off birth control on the general population).
HMMM…this makes the abstinence vs. safe sex arguement really tricky. Contraception may protect certain “high complying” individuals while promoting behaviors that condemn society in general to higher rates of self-inflicted poverty.
All this on a unicycle forum??!! I just got a 36er for Christmas 
and I love it! How 'bout you?
An ill-fated trials landing onto a fake (Chinese) Miyata seat with no air conversion from a drop of at least four feet is probably the best form of birth control a guy could ever have.
Diana Rigg…mmmmm. Preach it, brother.
Honour Blackman, you misguided fools.