Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 09, 2007
Jennifer Roback Morse :: Townhall.com Columnist
Get the Government Out of Sex Ed
by Jennifer Roback Morse
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


If you need an operation and the doctor tells you that overall, seven-eighths of patients have a successful outcome, you might think that was a pretty good deal. But suppose the operation failed. While you’re in the recovery room, the doctor tells you, “Oh, by the way, for people like you, the operation only succeeds 30% of the time. But we’ll sell you the solution to the botched operation.” You’d be furious. You’d sue that doctor for malpractice if you didn’t punch him first.

Yet this is precisely the situation Congress supports by funding Planned Parenthood and its allies to provide “comprehensive sex education” in secondary schools.

This is no exaggeration. Look at contraceptive failure rates, using Planned Parenthood’s own data. Two studies, (listed below, with website addresses) use this definition of contraceptive failure: the percentage of women who experience a pregnancy at the end of one year of using a particular contraceptive method. Somewhere between 12% and 13% of all contracepting women experienced a pregnancy within a year. In other words, about seven-eighths of women use contraceptives successfully. Two of the most commonly used and widely promoted methods are oral contraceptives and the male condom. Of all women using the Pill for one year, somewhere around 8% will experience a pregnancy. Between 14% and 15% of women who use the condom will become pregnant within a year.

But these statistics, while technically correct, don’t tell the whole story, not by a long shot. These are the “overall” statistics that our hypothetical doctor used in our opening story. The “for people like you” statistics paint a very different picture. These studies break down the population into age groups, income levels, marital status and race.

A poor cohabiting teenager using the Pill has a failure rate of 48.4%. You read that correctly: nearly half of poor cohabiting teenagers get pregnant during their first year using the Pill. If she kicked her boyfriend out of the house, or if she married him, her probability of pregnancy drops to 12.9%. At the other extreme, a middle-aged, middle-class married woman has a 3% chance of getting pregnant after a year on the Pill.

Over 70% of poor, cohabiting teenagers using condoms, will be pregnant within a year. By contrast, the middle-aged, middle-class married woman has a 6% chance of pregnancy after a year of condom use.

These figures cast new light on the debate over contraception education. The commonly quoted failure rates of 8% for the Pill and 15% for the condom are inflated by the highly successful use by middle-aged, middle-class married couples. Yet, the government promotes contraception most heavily among the young, the poor and the single. The “overall failure rates” are simply not relevant to this target population.

Planned Parenthood and its allies in the sex education business have had conniptions over federal funding for abstinence education. But at least abstinence actually works. If you don’t have sex, you won’t get pregnant. It works every time.

With contraception, we can absolutely predict that some sexual encounters will result in pregnancy. The young, the poor and the unmarried are the most likely to experience a contraceptive failure. For these groups, pregnancy is not a rare accident, but highly likely. When the inevitable pregnancy occurs, guess who is ready to help solve her problem? That’s right: Planned Parenthood will sell her an abortion. The same people who teach sex education, which increases the demand for purchasing contraception, also sell the “solution” to contraceptive failure, which is abortion. Yet the federal government spends about $12 on contraceptive-related programs to every $1 spent on abstinence education.

We don’t give federal grants to tobacco companies to teach students “low-risk” forms of smoking on the grounds that “kids are going to smoke anyway.” We shouldn’t be giving federal grants to groups that sell contraception, to teach kids to use contraception.

It is time for the federal government to get out of the sex education business once and for all.

 

If for some reason, you are unable to obtain the resources listed below online, send me $10 for my costs and I’ll send you paper copies in the mail.

“Contraceptive Failure in the First Two Years of Use: Differences Across Socioeconomic Subgroups,” Nalini Ranjit, Akinrinola Bankole, Jacqueline E. Darroch and Susheela Singh. Family Planning Perspectives, Vol 33, No. 1. January/February 2001, pp. 19-27.

“Contraceptive Failure Rates: New Estimates From the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth,” Haisahn Fu, Jacqueline E. Darroch, Taylor Haas, and Nalini Ranjit, Family Planning Perspectives, Vol 31, No. 2. March/April 1999, pp. 56-63.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., is the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love In A Hook-up World. She blogs at jennifer-roback-morse.blogspot.com

Be the first to read Jennifer Morse's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

I'll see you & raise you get gov't out
of education, period.

All the various phrases in the 1st ammendment boil down to the fact that the world of ideas is way to important to be state-controlled. Seems like schools fall in that category.

When you hear of a problem with schools, ask yourself if it would be a problem if it wasn't a public school. You'll be surprized.

Oh sure, private schools have problems too, but different ones and I'll wager smaller ones.

Vouchers are a step in the right direction.

Why can't kids sue 4 sexual harrassment?
I thought that harrassment in the work place included any kind of unwelcome talk of a sexual nature.

Why is it then, that America's children have to put up with teachers speaking to them in a very explicit manner?

Just because it is in a group setting?

I don't think so.

If my boss lined up all his underlings and started talking about sex, and expected them to just sit there without complaint, somebody would be filing a class action lawsuit.

Especially since the harrassment is directed toward minors.

If this was a reality show, the police would be waiting around the corner to arrest the p&rv!

Clean water and calendars
In the Shelters the common thread about contraception is that it does not work very well among poor women and girls because they lack or do not use two very essential items properly: clean water and calendars. A person who is living hand to mouth or whose immediate concern is where she will sleep that night has a different understanding of the calendar from a woman or girl with a stable, well regulated home, and that accounts for the failure of oral contraception. Having a regular routine in which you take your pill at the same time every day as a part of the other routines you follow guarantees that you use it the way it was designed to be used. You don't expect your car to keep running properly if you have no schedule for checking the fluids and putting gas in it, do you?

Likewise, people who have no access to or fail to use the access they have to clean water (showers, baths, even handi-wipes) are likely to have condom failures just because they don't catch all the little wigglers.

Personally I sent my kids to Catholic schools so that this subject would be guaranteed not to come up. The best contracteptive in the world is listening to your aunts talk about the battle to get child support from all the fathers of their children, and the information from Mama that if you get a girl pregnant, this will be your life for the next 20 years. When 20 years is longer than one has actually been alive, this is an impressive argument. And even better is when Mama works for lawyers and can explain the Family Law Act.

Like every other problem in North America, the best sex education involves not how to put Tab A into Slot B, but how to keep the lawyers out of your wallet.

re. vouchers (Nos Nevets)
A non-Catholic friend participated in an educators conference at a Catholic high school, and after noting a list of rules/consequences posted at the school, she told me that if she could do it over, she would have sent her three children there rather than the public school. I asked why, and she said, "When a school has the time to deal with an issue as inconsequential as gum-chewing, it is definitely a better environment than the average public school." Likewise with the general view toward abstinence, being considered smart, and going to college - it's all cool at a private school, but uncool at the public school.

AS for the HPV vaccine - government mandated immunizations should be for controlling epidemics - not to allow individuals to engage in irresponsible behavior with impunity. I wouldn't be surprised if Planned Parenthood is behind this, too.

re. AudiR10
Having worked several years at a pregnancy support center, where most of our clients are high shcool and college age, my experience suggests that the primary problem is immaturity, not lack of knowledge or tools. Regardless of the educational time taken from academics to indoctrinate teens with information on risky behavior, they remain by far the most reckless, self-destructive and dangerous segment of society. (For older women - it is more a sense of hopelessness and worthlessness, not ignorance or access to birth control.) Calendars and handiwipes are not the solution.

We don't teach them to smoke, drink or do drugs, safely - why in the world do we teach them how to have sex?? We are playing Russian Roulette with our children's lives.

only if used properly
>But at least abstinence actually works

That is the cavet reguardling birth control, and that applies to all its forms. Abstinence will work for some people, but IM sure the failure rates for teenages shows that they just dont pratice it correctly.

huh?
naked pagan -
To the contrary - abstaining is 100% successful, whereas artificial birth control is not 100% successful. Self control is a different issue, which applies to compliance with any form of birth control.

I usually don't do this
I think the Internet "gotcha" of using one typo to negate a hundred-word post is usually just childish.

However, since we are discussing education, I feel it is relevant to point out that the three advocates for keeping public schools in the sex ed business committed twelve misspellings in a total of sixteen lines.

Fred
>We don't teach them to smoke, drink or do drugs, safely - why in the world do we teach them how to have sex??

For the record, our school did give us a unit on drug abuse and the risks involved. Its part of everyday life.

But Sex is different. ITs what we use to have children and create families. It an important part of our existance.

Sex ed is not teaching someone to have sex, its teaching them about human sexuality. Its how to keep their body healthy, what to expect as they go through puberty, and eventually the duties of parent hood. Becuase it is technically and dynamic, you really cannot count on parents to be specialists in this field.

What exactly does...
government do well? I have long wondered what our country would be like if we could stop the government from helping us.

I just thought of what the government does well. It gets us into wars. That is a real achievement.

We really need to shrink this government and get it out of the business of helping us.

Fred
its only successful if its done correctly, that is, if teen agers follow the instructions.

Compare the teen pregancy rates were this is taught vs. areas were it is not. The data is out there. Sure, the theory may be sound, but the application is not working.

Yes, disipline and self control would make this just as safe as, say, depro.

BTW, what makes you think HPV isnt an epidemic?

Reliance on government programs.
Too much reliance on and faith in government programs creates fraudulence in those same programs. When the public is not watchful and vigilant that fraudulence will occur even in areas where government has a proper responsibility - such as the security of our borders.

Non sequitur
OK the article presents a case for the hypocrisy of PP. Where is the case for getting government out of sex education? I think the editor must have got to that part.

Abstinence
Funny thing people arguing whether abstinence works: by definition it has to work. If the person abstains, said person is abstinate or chaste.

When people say abstinence fails, what they really mean is the person(s) failed. Until 50 years ago, society built a pretty firm structure to ensure that teens or unmarried people abstained. Social stigmas, economics, jail, eternal damnation, and a father's 12-guage all provided our society with reasons to abstain.

Yes, 300 years ago 15 year Sons/daughters had sex -but they did it within the context of marriage and survival. Since the end of WWII, we have stretched childhood farther and farther into the adult years, while removing all the barriers that kept children having having sex. Today, it isn't unusual for a teen son/daughter and his/her lover to eat breakfast with thier parents. For parent's of the suburban middle class, birth control and education are the answer -they argue teens will do it anyway.

However, the underclass has become a wilderness of pagan violence where 12 year olds are having group sex, and girls are pimped out by thier 17 year old boyfriends. Very few stigmas remain - there is a growing chrous for states to relax consent laws. Even incest is now quietly being discussed by our "experts" as something beneficial.

Abstinence has now become sort of excercise in self actualization. Most of the young people who say they are chaste do so out of self respect and not out of religious beliefs. In this sense, both Catholics and Protestants have failed instilling a sense of awe of God and dread of Hell. When you hear young people speak of chasity.it is all the same self absorbed group-speak that teens partake in. In this sense, they are no different from thier peers. In the long run, most will fail, and a few may suceed. As long as Abstinence is a Thing-in-Itself, and not connected to a higher transdental object (God), it will be nothing more than another vaccuous life style choice.

Abstinence Works 100%...
... as does lesbianism.

JPK
What about lesbianism?

Lesbians do not get pregnant without assistance from Mr. Turk E. Baster. Therefore, lesbianism works.

Beer Breakfasts for High School kids?
hosekuervo writes: Great Idea
God knows how well that absinence only program has worked. Who needs education???
And while were at it, we should also get rid of Drivers Education to cut down on car accidents. Plus if we could solve the graffiti problem if we stopped teaching people how to write.
========

Actually, all of your examples ARE being used.
The age of getting a drivers' license is going up. It used to be that you could get it at 15 in some states, most now are working their way up to 17. And restricting licenses (no passengers other than parents, no late night driving) of those under 18 as well.

And even WalMart is restricting the sale of spray paint to minors. We aren't teaching them not to write but taking away their writing implements.

So if your examples are actually being done, well....

Sex Ed has NOTHING to do with education
First, follow the money. PLEASE follow the money....

Second, what are they advocating? NOT the actual concept of sexual education between people who will become married to each other. The intent instead is to license sexuality of all sorts except this and to further break down the concept of the family unit as the base of society.

Case in point - UMass Amherst had a well-funded rally for "choice" sponsored by the pro-abortion folk. Called "sex on the lawn" they didn't discuss abortion at all, instead encouraging girls to show their "orgasim face." To play with sex toys. To have a general sexual spring carnival.

How this relates to abortion? The only thing I can think of is that girls gotta get pregnant before they can decide to have an abortion...

And the sex ed stuff in K12 is increasingly homosexual education....

Moral Majority
If the schools stuck to the so-called "3 R's", we wouldn't need to decide what is "legal to teach."

I don't need some liberal aging hippy reject teaching my kids “the joys” of masturbation, anal sex, and fisting....or asking them, "how do you know you're not a homosexual if you haven't tried it?"

Pirate
How is homosexual education different from abstinence education?

Both teach unpopular, absolutely effective forms of birth control.

Well, one spreads AIDS and Hepitits and
abstinence doesn't...

I still would like to see schools teach reading and writing, though....

Sex education is NOT about education....
First, follow the money. PLEASE follow the money....

Second, what are they advocating? NOT the actual concept of sexual education between people who will become married to each other. The intent instead is to license sexuality of all sorts except this and to further break down the concept of the family unit as the base of society.

Case in point - UMass Amherst had a well-funded rally for "choice" sponsored by the pro-abortion folk. Called "sex on the lawn" they didn't discuss abortion at all, instead encouraging girls to show their "orgasim face." To play with sex toys. To have a general sexual spring carnival.

How this relates to abortion? The only thing I can think of is that girls gotta get pregnant before they can decide to have an abortion...

And the sex ed stuff in K12 is increasingly homosexual education....

Are we still talking about this?
How many studies must come out that show abstinence only education does not work before people will accept that comprehensive sex education should be taught? Ignorance is not bliss. Failure rates for contraception are connected more to improper use than ineffectiveness. The best way to combat that is by making sure that people are aware of how to use contraception should they decide to have sex.

Oh by the way, comprehensive sex education teaches that abstinence is the only sure way to keep from getting STDs or getting pregnant.

Moral Majority
You really want a random teacher instructing your kids about sex?

You either don't have any kids or you put way too much faith in the government.

MikeH
I agree. In fact, we need to expand the roles of school teachers beyond just sex. How many kids die every year from improper drug use, gun handling, drinking, and stupid driving acts.

We should insist that school teachers cover all these areas. Families and their so-called values have no place in raising children...only our government is equipped to properly teach these subjects. The parents can teach the unimportant crap, like reading, math, science, etc.

Icedog
"In fact, we need to expand the roles of school teachers beyond just sex."
Teachers' roles do extend beyond sex. They teach maths, sciences, histories, and many other subjects.

"How many kids die every year from improper drug use, gun handling, drinking, and stupid driving acts. We should insist that school teachers cover all these areas."
I don't know about all curricula, but sex education is not a class by itself. It is usually included in a health class where they do also teach about the effects alcohol and different types of drugs. I don't know if public high school offer these classes, but I would hope that people would take a driver's ed class before they get a license and a gun safety course before they bought a firearm.

"Families and their so-called values have no place in raising children"
I don't know why having a student learn about ways to prevent sexually transmitted diseases in a class that talks about ways to prevent many other types of diseases as well as just general health related topics preclude you from instilling values in your children

As you Reap, So Shall you Sew
This is all so symptomatic of government agencies---education not being the least among them---of daring to intrude further into the lives and habits of everyone, including the most intimate issues. Is there a role for parents at all--according to the NEA--now that public schools have basically given up the role of actually teaching the dry, boring topics of math and science and the King's English? I guess not. While Asians are doing molecular titration by the 8th grade, our little geniuses are sitting around getting "socialized" and preached at on causes they are hardly prepared for, propagandized with anti-Christian and anti-family attitudes from the education lords, and being encouraged to be promiscuous since as we know by Prom Night "everyone is doin' it!".
An education sight I recently visited online proudly blares (as a certain special night approaches)--"S0, girls, the Prom is here! You have your dress--but do you have the other necessities of the Night ready? Are you ready for Sex?!"

And indeed, the very mention of this "special night" to many a teenage boy is a "Right of Passage"---and considered with a wink and a nod among both teachers (and some dumbunnie parents) to be little Suzie or Johnny's "first time."
Sex education (the way the public schools have meted the issue out) is about equipment and preparation for THESE kinds of moments and the expectation (not warning) that such things occur, similar to having the Varsity football team get geared up and hyped up for the big Friday night, and likewise sex is considered a lower level bodily contact support for teens. Except the equipment is the Pill or the pack of Trojans instead of a football helmet.

I have news for the NEA and the Educrats--if you expect things, it is generally a self-fulfilling prophecy. Works every time.

And the analogy of cigarettes is in fact instructive. I don't preach at people for smoking or any other habit. But when it comes to health matters all should know by now that the best way to avoid damage due to any craving, be it cigarettes, caffeine, alcohol, or sexual promiscuity or premarital sex (which has serious psychological consequences in its own right, not even to mention the risk of VD or pregnancy), logic tells you that at some point you're going to have to maintain control of bodily functions. Abstinence is difficult. Most things of value are difficult to achieve. Hence the very nature and honor of the word "achievement". This is not the same as saying it is impossible. Imagine, indeed, a government agency or school room that instructs that "well, sweetheart, the little darlings are going to sneak cigarettes from mom's purse anyhow or just have their pals buy them at the local curb store, why not just tell them to smoke Carlton's rather than Marlboro lights!" After all, they're going to 'do it anyhow'--as statistics show!" Gosh. What a recipe for success eh? How illuminating!

It is time to get government out of education. Period. No more sumptuous labor unions. No more grants. Let parents decide what is best for their children---and indeed the courts have consistently (at least here in the United States---citizens of Europe routinely get told they are know-nothings by the courts) said that parents should be the final arbiters of values for their kids. My wife and I have other values to impart rather than warehousing the kiddies in a system were they ugly influence of peer pressure and other suspect groupings have harm. Kids need encouragement from the older siblings and adults. This is obviously not a perfect measure for success in life but in mine and many other experiences is far superior to influence of peer pressure.

Lastly, the ignorant myrmidons of the NEA who chatter here can drop all the mythology about the early church teaching that the world was flat or that the Sun went around the earth, as with only a few noteworthy exceptions and misunderstandings, this is mostly myth, as has been pointed out by numerous organizations and historians like Rodney Stark, who unlike the NEA's wizards, actually bother with the research into the past of science and the scientific method before opening their yaps about issues that are somewhat more complex than the Educrats would have you believe in their précis formats.

hosekuervo, since you asked...
hosekuervo wrote: "God knows how well that absinence only program has worked."


God's not the only one who knows. Who'd have thought, the Heritage Foundation has been collecting peer-reviewed research demonstrating just how well abstinence education works, and the general answer seems to be "pretty doggone well."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm

dbz77, you need a logic lesson
dbz77 wrote, at least twice, "Abstinence Works 100%... as does lesbianism."

This is actually correct, if the only criterion being applied is "does it prevent pregnancy?"

However, as a sex education substitute, lesbianism has some pretty hefty side effects.

The devil is in the details
The obvious comeback to the writer's main thesis is that the high failure rates among poor, young, single(cohabitating but not married) women is precisely because they do not have the education to make effective use of contraception. If a doctor says "follow my advice and you have 7 chances in 8 of this procedure being successful". Perhaps it should be part of contraceptive education to say "don't follow the advice and the chance of failure increases by about 5 times."

Secondly, I agree with Fred that a big factor is whether or not kids are going to listen to the advice. If kids don't pay attention to the education - whether abstinence or contraceptive - then there is no point in teaching either one.

If someone can point to some empirical research regarding the rates of abstinence, sexual activity and pregnancy with a) no education b) abstienence only c) contraceptive only and d) various mixes of abstinence and contraceptive education then it should be relatively easy to what the most effective policy to balancing a reduction of sexual activity and pregnancy among teenager.

Most of the studies I have read are flawed in one or more ways, or are - at best - incomplete.

MikeH
If you really believe that is all children are being taught then I know you have been out of school for a while.

Here is a little of the Ohio Department of Education's plan to teach “safe sex” with condoms, starting in FIFTH GRADE.

I can't type most of the program here without getting my post flagged (but you can find it on the Internet):

It included how-to lessons on homosexual sex; exercises such as hide the condom on your body and invite your partner to look for it; class discussions to list gross slang for sex and body parts; lessons in oral sex and masturbation.

And the ODE wanted every sex-ed classroom to have a giant wooden pen*s named “Woody” so the children could practice with it.

BlawBlaw, are you joking?
BlawBlaw wrote: "...the high failure rates among poor, young, single(cohabitating but not married) women is precisely because they do not have the education to make effective use of contraception..."

I'm really sorry, but you'll actually need to produce some peer-reviewed research to make a claim like this. I'm simply not buying that the failure of poor, young people to use contraception properly is due to their lack of education.

It doesn't take much in the way of education to put on a condom. What it takes, and what they probably lack, is self-discipline. THAT claim, I might buy -- but I'd still like to see some research to back it up.

BlawBlaw, check the site I posted...
...for hosekuervo regarding abstinence education. Here it is again: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm

I don't know that a comprehensive study has been produced, so you're probably stuck with having to piece ideas together from various studies, but that's normal.

Please try to keep in mind that bias has skewed lots of the research in this field. The agendas of the funding organizations, and the predispositions of the researchers, tend to come through loud and clear in this sort of research.

I don't think there's any doubt, though, that if the culture at large is not sex-saturated, if the schools, the churches, the TV shows, the community, and the parents all agree that sex is only appropriate for marriage, and if there's a generalized social taboo against non-marital sex, then teenage sex occurs a lot less frequently than it does here today. That was the case here in the US 50+ years ago, and both pregnancy and STD rates were considerably lower than they are today. I've seen no credible research that suggests otherwise. Kids CAN listen; they may not be able to IN OUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT.

icedog
I couldn't find anything like what you are talking about on the internet. Thought I did find out some interesting facts about Ohio's sex education programs. Specifically, the Ohio State Board of Education does not have a set of standards for sex ed. It is left up to the individual districts and schools. Also, many of the districts teach abstinence only starting in the fourth grade.
If you have a link where I can find what you were talking about I will be more than happy to take a look at it.

inkling_revival
>That was the case here in the US 50+ years ago, and both pregnancy and STD rates were considerably lower than they are today

Could you back up this assertion please? I would like to know where you get your information.

In an immigration-related forum today
I saw the following humourous thread about Bush OUTSOURCING the government to Bangalore (I was the one who suggested that Muzaffarpur or Tikamgarh may be more apt).

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=77201

As variation: how about to Zimbabwe instead? We remove Mugabe and send all OUR bureaucrats over there.

MikeH
Here you go...straight to their own site.

http://www.siecus.org/pubs/guidelines/guidelines.pdf

Here's a few highlights

Level 1 (Ages 5 to 8):
Both girls and boys have body parts that feel good when touched.

Vaginal intercourse occurs when a man and a woman place the pen*s inside the vagina.

Human beings experience different kinds of loving.

Most men and women are heterosexual, which means they will be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the other gender.

Some men and women are homosexual, which means they will be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.

Homosexuals are also known as gay men and lesbian women.

Many people live in lifetime committed relationships, even though they may not be legally married.

Touching and rubbing one's own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.

Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.

Masturbation should be done in a private place.

Adults often kiss, hug, touch and engage in other sexual behavior with one another to show caring and to share sexual pleasure.


Level 2 (Ages 9 to 12):
Sexual intercourse provides pleasure.

Sexual orientation refers to whether a person is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

A bisexual person is attracted to both men and women.

Why a person has a particular sexual orientation is not now known.

Homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual people are alike except for their sexual attraction.

Homosexual and bisexual people are often mistreated, called hurtful names, or denied their rights because of their sexual orientation.

Some people are afraid to admit they are bisexual or homosexual because they fear they will be mistreated.

Homosexual love relationships can be as fulfilling as heterosexual relationships.

Gay men and lesbians can adopt children or have their own children.

Masturbation is often the first way a person experiences sexual pleasure.

Many boys and girls begin to masturbate for sexual pleasure during puberty.

Couples have different ways to share sexual pleasure with each other.

Being sexual with another person usually involves more than sexual intercourse.

A woman faced with an unintended pregnancy can carry the pregnancy to term and raise the baby, place the baby for adoption, or have an abortion to end the pregnancy.

Abortion is legal in the United States.

Abortion must be performed by a physician or other licensed health provider.

A legal abortion is very safe.


Level 3 (Ages 12 to 15):
Theories about what determines sexual orientation include genetics and prenatal influences, socio-cultural influence, psychosocial factors, and a combination of all these factors.

Homosexual couples behave sexually in many of the same ways as heterosexual couples.

Many young people have brief sexual experiences (including fantasies and dreams) with the same gender, but they mainly feel attracted to the other gender.

Some young people have brief sexual experiences (including fantasies and dreams) with the other gender but they mainly feel attracted to their own gender.

When a homosexual person accepts his/her sexual orientation, gains strength and pride as a gay or lesbian person, and tells others, it is known as "coming out."

Talking about feelings about sexual orientation can be difficult.

“Coming out" can be difficult because people fear negative reactions.

Some people feel attracted to both men and women.

Every culture and society has some people who are homosexual.

People do not choose their sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation cannot be changed by therapy or medicine.

Understanding one's sexual orientation can be difficult.

Gay men, lesbian women, and bisexuals can lead fulfilling lives.

Gay men and lesbian women can establish lifelong committed relationships.

Some religious groups oppose homosexuality.

Peoples' beliefs about homosexuality are based on their religious, cultural, and family values.

When couples spend a lot of time together alone, they are more likely to become sexually involved.

Gay and lesbian youth, like heterosexual youth, may or may not date.

Two people who cohabit can have the same commitment and responsibility toward one another as married people.

Sometimes the values one learns in society conflict with the values one has learned in one's family.

Values should be freely chosen after the alternatives and their consequences are evaluated.

Teenagers sometimes need to talk with an adult other than their parents.

Some agencies provide services for teenagers that do not require parental permission, are confidential, and cost little or no money.

How often a person masturbates varies for every individual.

A person worried about masturbation might talk to a trusted adult.

Most people have masturbated at some time in their lives.

Masturbation, either alone or with a partner, is one way a person can enjoy and express their sexuality without risking pregnancy or an STD/HIV.

Many negative myths exist about masturbation.

When two people express their sexual feelings together, they usually give and receive pleasure.

Sexual relationships can be more fulfilling in a loving relationship.

Being sexual with another person usually involves different sexual behaviors.

Some sexual expressions are prohibited by law and disapproved of by certain religions and families.

An early abortion can be done in a clinic, doctor's office, or hospital.

Most women report no problems after having an abortion.

People's beliefs about abortion are based on their religious, cultural, and family values.

Some religions support the right to an abortion.

Some religions oppose abortion.

The right of a woman to have a legal abortion is guaranteed by the Supreme Court, although there are restrictions in some states.


Level 4 (Ages 15 to 18):
Sexual orientation is determined by a combination of a person' s attractions, fantasies, and behavior.

Gender identity is determined by a person' s feelings of maleness or femaleness.

The understanding and identification of one' s sexual orientation may change during life.

Some people who engage in same gender sexual behavior do not identify as bisexual, gay, or lesbian.

Teenagers who have questions about their sexual or gender orientation should consult a trusted and knowledgeable adult.

People of different generations may have different values and ideas about family life.

Dating can be a way to learn about other people, about romantic and sexual feelings and expression, and about what it is like to be in a loving relationship.

Having values different from one's family can be difficult.

A person may accept one's family's values and not always agree with all of them.

To behave according to one's values can be difficult but usually results in feelings of pride.

The traditional gender roles about sexuality in our society are becoming more flexible.

For most people, sharing a sexual experience with a partner is a satisfying way to express sexuality.

Couples and individuals need to decide how to express their sexual feelings.

Some sexual behaviors shared by partners include kissing, touching, talking, caressing, massaging, sharing erotic literature or art, bathing/showering together, and oral, vaginal or anal intercourse.

Individuals are responsible for their own sexual pleasure.

Some people use erotic photographs, movies, or literature to enhance their sexual fantasies when alone or with a partner.

Some sexual fantasies involve mysterious or forbidden things.

Many people's sexual fantasies include behaviors not actually acted upon or even desired in real life.

Some people continue to respect their religious teachings and traditions but believe that some views are not personally relevant.

There are a growing number of congregations that welcome openly gay men and lesbians.

Why not marry at younger ages?
JPK writes: "Yes, 300 years ago 15 year Sons/daughters had sex -but they did it within the context of marriage and survival."

But in New England in the early 19th century, the legal "age of consent" for girls was 12. And child brides were commonplace in past centuries, all over the world. (In some places, they still are.) "Marriage and survival" meant you married early to have as many kids as possible, maximizing the chance that at least some of them would survive to adulthood.

The Muslim prophet, Mohammed, married a 6 year old girl and consummated with her when she was 9 years old.

But the Calvinist ethic took hold in America; we raised the legal age of consent, started frowning on child brides, and created a large gap in a young person's life between the onset of sexual maturity and when that person marries. We have made sex in that time frame illegal and demanded abstinence. But that hasn't worked.

Even in today's Japan, the legal age of consent for both boys and girls is 13. And yet nobody thinks Japanese society is collapsing into moral decay.

So I say that if you want young people to only have sex within marriage, then allow them to marry at earlier ages as was widely done in the past. It would still be a vast improvement if a 14 year old boy married a 14 year old girl (which wouldn't have raised eyebrows in many societies in past centuries) and divorce some years later, rather than having sex extramaritally and promiscuously.

Icedog
Thanks for the link. Though it refutes your original post. There is no mention about condom use to elementary children. The earliest reference to condoms I can find is for middle school children. I certainly find no instance of teaching people how to masturbate, perform oral sex, or perform "homosexual sex" (whatever that is). There is also no class exercise where a student is told to "hide the condom on your body and invite your partner to look for it."

Also, while all the quotes you use are correct, you leave out this important point found in their guidelines: "While the Guidelines present age-appropriate messages, these are not meant to be read verbatim or incorporated into lesson plans word-for-word. One of the challenges for educators may be determining the best language to use when presenting information to students."

To the original point. Looking through the list, I can't find any incorrect information. Not so with abstinence only curricula. Its filled with distortions and misinformation. I don't happen to think that ignorance is a family value. If a person wants to children to abstain from sex until marriage, they are still free to do so. If they want to say that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God, no one will stop them. But purposefully keeping information that could have life or death consequences away from children is grossly unethical.

masturbation benefits
moral_majority writes: "God forbid your kid finds out “the joys” of masturbation; etc."

Actually, there is now some medical evidence that masturbation for males may actually be healthy. Studies seem to show that men who ejaculate frequently seem to have a lower incidence of prostate cancer. Perhaps the ejaculations help flush toxins out of the prostate gland.

MikeH and IceDog
I was living in Ohio when the switched to this sex education format. Previously, they had allowed parents to provide sex education, but when the number of teen age pregancies got out of control, they switched to this new format.

Part of the problem is that kids are not getting the information when they need it. White kids enter puberty in their early teens, black kids start a little earlier, yet if any information is provided at all, its around the late teens,letting the kids walk around with a loaded gun for at least 5 years.

Honestly, how do you expect people not to do 'it' unless they know what 'it' is? If facts are not provided then rumor will fill the void. Information needs to be given when its useful, not when condesending moralist thinks its 'proper'

Hmmm
Stevel writes, in part:

So I say that if you want young people to only have sex within marriage, then allow them to marry at earlier ages as was widely done in the past. It would still be a vast improvement if a 14 year old boy married a 14 year old girl (which wouldn't have raised eyebrows in many societies in past centuries) and divorce some years later, rather than having sex extramaritally and promiscuously.
________________________________________

I don't know if the "consent" age in Japan is really comparable across cultures. That nation DOES have its share of problems, one being that while on the outside it looks prudish and proper, in the reality it is rife with sexual abuse and the view that women are for entertainment.

As to our own culture, while it is true that in the past we married younger due to mere survival and reproduction needs due to high attrition and loss in a frontier atmosphere (and you'll find this in older cultures as well, like the ancient Hebrews), the times around us generally dictate that maturity issues prohibit such unions. Most teens are not prepared for family life. It happens yes, that some grow up quickly, but is not an ideal burdon to place (family and marriage and kids) along with the generally tumultuous lives most teens live and in a time of great stress for most young people. Not a good idea for most youngsters. And the placement of this explains why--even when earnistly attempted--so many "starter marriages" end in utter ruin when "love" is found when in reality what you have is the temporal joy of sex out of sheer infatuation along.


Consumation with a NINE year old is just sickness, at the very best. That's an older man's jollies, and serves no apparent social function.

MikeH, naked pagan, check the lies
From the siecus site, told to children aged 9 to 12 (an age before children are developmentally able to assess ideas on their own):

"Homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual people are alike except for their sexual attraction. "

Anybody familiar with the public health statistics on homosexual sex knows that this statement is not just false, but dramatically so. I'll post the scientific evidence farther down.

Consider: would you approve if representatives of the tobacco industry were permitted to come into public schools and teach seminars on use of tobacco products? Suppose they told the children (at an age where the kids aren't really capable of saying "I don't believe that"), "People who smoke and people who don't are all alike, except for their choice to smoke;" would you feel that somebody perhaps should tell the children that smoking is very dangerous to their health, will make them fell sick most of the time, and will most likely cause them to die a lot sooner than they would have otherwise?

Now consider the effect of the homosexual lifestyle on longevity:

"For homosexual males with a partner, the average lifespan was 45. For homosexual males without a partner, the average lifespan was 46. (Deaths examined between 1999 and 2001."

Homosexual Partnerships and Homosexual Longevity: A Replication. Psychological Reports - 2002, 91, 671-678)

"Out of 6,574 homosexual deaths, the average lifespan if AIDS was the cause of death was 39. The average lifespan if AIDS was not the cause was 42. For lesbians, the average lifespan was 44."

Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, Volume 29, Number 3, 1994. The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic.

Do you think perhaps somebody ought to be telling the children the DANGER of engaging in homosexual behavior, given that it reduces lifespan by THREE TIMES the effect of smoking???

naked pagan, post your support
naked pagan wrote: "Previously, they had allowed parents to provide sex education, but when the number of teen age pregancies got out of control, they switched to this new format."

That's gotta be inaccurate.

I've never seen a single study that indicates that sex education reduces the number of teen pregnancies. I've seen several that suggest it INCREASES them. Most seem to say sex education classes have no overall effect on the rate of teen BIRTHS; however, if you dig into those statistics, you sometimes discover that the number of teen PREGNANCIES have increased, but the number of teen ABORTIONS have increased in proportion.

But I could be mistaken, so take your best shot. Show me the peer-reviewed research that says that any sex education class brought any state's teen pregnancies under control.

SteveL, what's missing
What's missing from your analysis, Steve, is that in the time period you're discussing here in North America, the population was mostly agrarian. Children worked at home, were educated at home (much better than they're now educated in school, as it happens), matured a lot earlier, and frequently farmed land adjacent to or near their parents' homesteads. They were READY to marry pretty much by the time they reached puberty.

What we're facing today is complicated -- in fact, caused, in part -- by an artificial, extended childhood forced on children by the industrial society and by a mandated 12 years of formal education. Kids are expected to behave with their hormones going berserk, while herded together in largely unsupervised school activities. Add MTV, sex-saturated music and movies, and a culture devoid of moral standards of any sort, and you've got a prescription for what we've got now -- mostly unrestrained sexual behavior, and an epidemic of venereal diseases. If there's ANY restraint on sexual behavior, it's all coming from 1) parents, and 2) fear. Sex ed REDUCES #2, and encourages kids to ignore #1. It would be a miracle if that worked. It doesn't.

Good advice inkling_revival
Though you should be the one taking it. I would be suspicious of anything that the Family Research Council put out. That is where Paul Cameron, the author of the studies you cite, affiliates himself. I won't go through the problems with his methodology here, but you can find his study debunked in many places with a simple internet search. If homosexuals were dying 20 years younger than heterosexuals that would be alarming news, but it just isn't the case.

SteveL
Very insightful post sir. A lot of previously un-made points, and written concisely.

I would like to add some thoughts:

In the 50'2 and 60's, religious parents in America warned the baby boom generation that this new 'rock and roll' stuff was from the devil. You had Elvis thrusting his hips, the Beatles telling female youths *gasp*, "I want to hold your hand".

The 'greatest generation' spoke out against this music, and the influence it was having on their kids. Their kids, predictably laughed at them. They defiantly embraced all that rock and roll was, and glorified the arstists in a near-worshipful mania.

Guess what? That very generation proved their parents to be prophetic. They continue to do so. Those same rock-loving rebels of the baby boom generation, not only still embrace the immorality (I mean in the traditional sense, before anyone tries to jump in with: "Whose morality, yours??!!), they force feed it to anyone and everyone.

They have and do lobby to have it preached, and taught in our schools. Even if you put your kid in a private school, they still take your tax money to teach other kids their amoral debauchery.

Don't get me wrong, I can't help but love a lot of rock and roll music, although I reject more than I like,, but the culture change it has birthed (sexual immorality, drug use, revered suicide, pregnency, STD's on steroids, Iggy Pop,I could go on ad infinitem), was the worst trade-off for mankind since a certain apple was consumed way back when.....




Not SteveL....
My above comments should have been addressed to inkling_revival, not SteveL. Mea culpa..

RD

inkling_revival
>Show me the peer-reviewed research that says that any sex education class brought any state's teen pregnancies under control.

You first:

>Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, Volume 29, Number 3, 1994. The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic.

Maybe this exists, maybe not. Couldnt find it thru google, not this article. Magizine exists, but back issues cost $40.

Ohio went to this new program back in the late 80's. I just said why they did it, I didnt say it worked.

Course it does make sense, children should have sex education of some kind before they can get each other pregant. Cant help the fact that you think that may be too young, but thats Natural Law... go talk to God if you dont like it.

naked pagan
"Course it does make sense, children should have sex education of some kind before they can get each other pregant."

-I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that children don't need to be educated about sex, so that they can avoid pregnancy, or worse. Ever.

What IS argued, is that the Federal Government has absolutely no business educating anyone about sex at any time whatsoever, under any circumstance. It's that simple.

In fact, if there were EVER a subject whose discussion was the sole responsibility of parents, this is the one.

Funny, I didn't think liberals believed in 'Natural Law'. Btw....where does God say anything like:
"Course it does make sense, children should have sex education of some kind before they can get each other pregant. Cant help the fact that you think that may be too young, but thats Natural Law."???

Must have missed that one..

RD

Gov. can't solve this
I don't believe there is such as a thing as values neutral education. Any subject covered will have either a secular/humanistic set of values, or it will have a moral set of values.

How can parents expect a moral set of values like abstinence education from a public school system that is openly secular?

If moral values parents think they can run in and demand the secular schools accommodate their beliefs, shouldn't secular parents be able to demand their beliefs and be accommodated too? How can the public system do both at the same time?

How can a school system's sex ed class instill the self discipline required to purchase and effectively use contraception consistently in a bunch of undisciplined teenagers? (And a two adult women I personally know.)

Do conservatives actually believe abstinence education classes will change the social norms that saturate society in ineffective homes and the mass media?

Can the schools really substitute for bad parenting that contributes so heavily to this problem? Those of us advocating abstinence know how hard it is to live it even when our social circles encourage it. Imagine someone who has no social support on the subject.

Should schools really be in the business of social engineering? People seem to say, "Yes!" when it suits their personal beliefs about what is good for society, but then yell "No!" when it is conflict with those beliefs. How can they have it both ways?

How does society contribute to the single parenthood epidemic? Isn't there economic incentive knowing the state will support the unplanned child with welfare payments to women who do not sue the father for child support? Shouldn't society go back to the old "protect and provide" definition of a man? We tolerate too much irresponsibility.

Doesn't the "it's all good" attitude in society make single parenthood socially acceptable? Wouldn't a little more social stigma ratchet up the motivation level some?

I am suspicious of simple solutions to complex problems. I think people have unrealistic ideas about the root and scope of the problem. The problem isn't knowledge of body parts and birth control methods. The problem is impulse control and psychological/emotional factors in teenagers and young adults.

I suspect almost every pregnant single female and her male partner in America knew how babies are made before they engaged in intercourse. They also knew where to purchase and how to use condoms before their sexual encounter.

Changing social norms is the real problem and re-instituting older social norms (sex is foe adults-not children) while eliminating economic incentives would reduce this problem significantly.

Instead people want to hear, "We're from the government and we're here to help you". The government schools did not cause this problem and the government schools cannot solve it.

The SIECUS Circus
Icedog and others: revealing, but not surprising at all. It is important to keep in mind a few things here:

While its true that sexual mores are like a pendulum in their application, SIECUS is an OVERREACTION to the true and regrettable stringent mores of a Victorian era. The one that gave people the false impression that the Bible condemns human sexuality (it certainly does not, but merely lays down a mere few laws regarding relationships, etc). In reality what people have more in mind when it comes to the prudish "church lady" is the Victorian Era with all its hang-ups and hardships and protocols laid on people. Admittedly the Church, as well as parents, have often abdicated their roles in teaching the proper role for God and Scripture in human relationships. True enough. And whether a society is secular or more religiously based in her values, we do ourselves harm by vacillating between prudishness and absurdist permissiveness. SIECUS was invented and maintained by educrats who hated religion, hated Christianity in particular, regarding it as "rotting corpse" that needed to be dismantled along with what its current director sites as "patriarchal religion" and the "evil" of heterosexual marriage and the "primitive" notions of abstinence. SIECUS has always had the goal of not merely laying out informational tracts to be absorbed by the kiddies, but rather a radical transformation of what Helen Calderone has called "highly evolved beings" who leave family and "hung ups" about sex behind. And admittedly, what better way to undermine parental authority and parental morals and religious teachings than to indoctrinate the little ones in the wiles of homosexuality and acceptance of almost everything our forefathers felt was immoral? In other words? Nice girls DO! Or so we are now told.

Of course, the undermining of parental authority (or according to some leftist educators, "those fascist restraints on progress"), has been Prime Directive One since the days of radical socialists like John Dewey and Horace Mann, among dozens of others, who are also not only the most famous educators and advocates of government control of all aspects of life, but haters of Christian virtue and advocates of government control of everything from foods to commerce. That sex is also on the "to do" list for government educators seeking to undermine parental morals is no shock to people actually paying close attention and know the history of "education" in this nation.

To Calderone and her contemporaries in the theoretical levels of the government education business, notions of chastity, abstinence before your wedding night, purity, and monogamy, (as well as what she and many "women's colleges" now deride as the "Heterosexist Assumptive") are evils to be conquered, not cherished as values. So it is of no surprise to this writer that such explicit info is handed out to younglings at the very time they ought to defer such questions to people actually concerned with their well-being. Like parents and clergy.

One needs to only
look at the actual results of sex ed. Rates of unwanted pregnancy up, STD's up, sexual activity up, etc. etc. Perhaps it's time to try a different tact. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result is lunacy. The fact is, libs protest they want their sexual freedoms, then complain and want something done when the fruits of their irresponsibilty come home to roost. Then they try to shove that on the rest of us, first by promoting sexual promiscuity culturally, then the "need" for their brand of sex ed. How about taking sex ed. out of schools altogether? Our kids would be a whole lot safer.

CT
Actually, teen pregnacy rates are at their lowest levels in thirty years. And while STDs are still a serious health problem, they have declined sharply over the past twenty years.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/trends2005.htm

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf

"How about taking sex ed. out of schools altogether? Our kids would be a whole lot safer."
Not even close.

Get entertainment writers out of writing
about reproductive health and policy matters.

"Over 70% of poor, cohabiting teenagers using condoms, will be pregnant within a year. By contrast, the middle-aged, middle-class married woman has a 6% chance of pregnancy after a year of condom use.

These figures cast new light on the debate over contraception education."

Umm, they cast new light only if you're reproductive health education is lacking. [Can you say decreased fertility, frequency of intercourse, etc?]

"But at least abstinence actually works. If you don’t have sex, you won’t get pregnant. It works every time."

Please cite one single study, in the whole of the medical literature, supporting your statement. Out of the over 80 methods of birth control available, abstinence is the only method with an unknown typical use failure rate. [And, yes, I'm aware of the virginity pledge studies which showed a very high failure rate for abstinence, however those don't count because of selection/methodology.]

Just one more thing. I realize this is an entertainment column but, since you're discussing a medical matter, you should be aware that in the real world you don't compare the perfect use rate for one method (abstinence) to the typical use rate of another method (Pill, condom, etc.).


Mike H,
Yet teenage sexual activity is up. Our patriarchal institutions, such as schools, give our kids the thumbs up on sexual promiscuity and I still stand by my main point - Sex ed has not been benefitted our kids, rather it encourages and enables this behavior.

Mike H,
One more thing, I didn't say teenage pregnancy rates are up, I said unwanted pregnancies were up (in society as a whole). The public school system enables and encourages this behavior.

CT
Actually, teen sexual activity is down.

http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Notive how all the data show declines in teen pregnancy, activity, and STDs during the nineties when comprehensive sex education was pushed by the federal government. Now, nine states are refusing federal money so that they do not have to teach abstinence only because they are beginning to see a reverse in those trends.

First, you said that sex ed was dangerous for our children. Then, it was just not beneficial. Now, I hope that you will agree that our children benefit greatly from it, and that it helps them grow to be responsible adults.

CT
"One more thing, I didn't say teenage pregnancy rates are up, I said unwanted pregnancies were up (in society as a whole)."
Sorry, that's my bad.

But, would you believe it, unwanted pregnancies (definied by abortions) decreased during the nineties as well.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

Just can't beat that comprehensive sex ed!

Realitydweller
>In fact, if there were EVER a subject whose discussion was the sole responsibility of parents, this is the one.

Oh I totally disagree with this. Parents may teach the moral aspects of sexuality, but the phyiscal aspects should be taught by professionals who mantain currency it in the topic


>I didn't think liberals believed in 'Natural Law'.

Guess you dont know everything, huh?

>Btw....where does God say anything like..

God doesnt SAY Natural Law, God SHOWS it. Teenagers can be parents because God allows this to happen. You cant change that. You can, however, make sure they understand what they are doing.

The only thing that works
As far as education goes, I am all for it. But if we are going to educate them on sex, let's educate them on the consequences of sex. I say let them see the pictures of STDs, let them see the pictures of abortion. Better yet, let them watch an abortion. I remember when I was in driver's ed they showed a video of people who were in a terrible car wreck actually dying (moaning etc.) on screen. That image may have saved my life because it sure scared me into being a cautious driver.

That being said, I don't really think education will work to prevent sex (I do think it would make our kids more pro-life, though), and I hate to say this, because it probably isn't practical in this day and age, but the only thing that really works is constant supervision. When the courting was done on the front porch, abstinence was a lot more popular and practical. It amazes me that parents teach their kids abstinence and then send them off on unsupervised Spring Break trips or prom nights. The combination of alcohol, hormones and privacy is potent.

Would you leave your two year old in a room alone with a bag full of candy and instructions not to open it? You would probably come back to a messy, hyper child with a stomachache. It is the same principle with two 16 year olds, Daddy's car and 4-5 hours until curfew.

Let's bring back the "chaperone"!

naked pagan
I think most parents "maintain currency in the topic" when it comes to the physical aspects of sexuality. Or did they invent some new stuff? Maybe we could all use some more education. Or did you mean STD info, etc.?

There has been a rash (so to speak)
of teachers that have been having sex with their very young pupils.

I think that this is a definate indication that the schools are filled with deviant teachers.

Why, for heaven's sake, would we want these morally confused freaks to be teaching America's children about sex?

MikeH, 8:55 PM
Wrote: "And while STDs are still a serious health problem, they have declined sharply over the past twenty years."

Are you lying, or ignorant?

The study you cite lists rates for syphillis, ghonnorea, and clamydia, three bacterial STDs. There are more than FIFTY STDs in our country. The three you name are occurring less frequently; some of the others are epidemic.

Believed to me the most common STD in America (and Europe, if I'm not mistaken) is HPV, Human Pappiloma Virus. Virus, not bacterium. Not curable. The occurrance of HPV is a precursor to cervical cancer. Studies show more than 20 million Americans carry it, but possibly as many as 80 million have been exposed at one time in their lives. One study conducted in Britian concluded that nearly half of young women will be infected with the HPV virus during their FIRST SEXUAL EXPERIENCE. You read that right.

Next most common is genital herpes. Again, viral; no cure. More than 40 million Americans have it.

Condoms accomplish NOTHING to prevent the spread of either disease.

The leading cause of death among Americans aged 25-40 is HIV, another incurable, viral STD not included in that comforting article you posted a link to.

MikeH, please stop misleading people. If you actually believe STDs is a problem on the wane, you're too ignorant to be posting about it. If you know better, then you're a liar. Take your pick, but STFU either way.

All statistics in this post obtained from Dr. Meg Meeker's book Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids, Lifeline Press, Wash, DC, 2002. You can check her citations yourself; buy the book, you need it. And no, Mike, it's not a product of the Family Research Council, so that straw man isn't going to stand up, either.

God, these teen sex advocates are just so freakin' incredibly DISHONEST...

Libdolts
I am so tired reading libdolt after libtard post how kids need to be educated about sex, sexuality, homosexuality, etc. It used to be schools taught kids reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science, and english. Kids were educated in every other regard by their parents. Schools should be training our children in those areas. All other areas are social in nature and involve decisions relating to religion and morality. That is the realm of the parent and the family unit. Of course libtards have done everything they can to destroy the family unit too so there is only one parent a good deal of the time. Unfortunately in their opinion the government shoudl replace the parent. They also believe that religion is a bad thing and that religious believe makes you a simpleton in need of their guidance. Who cares what they think? The main problem with liberals is they think they are smarter than everyone else because after all we're all just just Jesus lovin' cousin marrying retards to them. The truth is that in all of their ideas and programs you will not see the smallest shred of common sense. Take the whole "they're gonna do it anyway". So their lamebrained solution is to teach 10 and 12 year olds without ever having the sense to understand the only thing they are changing is how earlythey're gonna do it. Any schmoe could figure that out. The problem with the number of early pregnancies, abortion, etc. is that kids know too much not that they know too. I don't want my little girls to know about sex until they are adults. That's the best way to avoid the issue. Of course some high and mighty libdrool will call me a caveman or a Jesus freak because they think kids should know everything. Well they don't. Why can't we just let them be kids. Why do we have to rush them into all of this cr@p?

SteveL
I am assuming based on your comments you do not have children? Certainly no daughters. Only a moronic lib would make such a suggestion regarding the age to marry. Like most liberal "experts" you apparently know nothing of what you speak. Ever even met a 12 or 15 year old? Yeah they're ready for marriage Steveo. Way to go Brainiac.

SteveL 2
Obviously you don't have kids. That explains your advocating frequent masturbation.

naked pagan, 7:20 PM
wrote, just unbelievably, "Course it does make sense, children should have sex education of some kind before they can get each other pregant."

You absolutely have to be joking. And you just contradicted yourself.

You're attempting to defend the notion that birth and STD rates were the same 50 years ago that they are today, that kids have always been "doing it." Of course, there weren't sex education courses of the type we're talking about 50 years ago. So, how did they figure out "how to get each other pregnant," as you so politely put it?

Kids have NEVER needed sex education to figure out how to have sex. We're actually sort of programmed to want to reproduce. And parents have always been completely successful in teaching their kids how to get it going at the appropriate time. If they hadn't, the species would not have survived, now, would it?

People who claim parents can't teach their kids sex are rationalizing. They say it when they're selling you the Brooklyn Bridge. It just ain't so.

The difference between 50 years ago and today is the attitudes of the culture toward sex. It was not hostile 50 years ago, just more mature than today. They understood that it was an adult activity, they understood it was primarily for married couples, women knew they had the power and responsibility to say "No," men understood they'd have to take responsibility if they caused a pregnancy. There's nothing like the awareness that he'll have a huge financial responsibility to help a young man keep his trousers zipped up tight.

Today's flippant attitude toward teen sex is beyond insane; it's so out of control that it would be funny, if it weren't causing an epidemic of venereal diseases and teen depression.

MikeH, 6:39 PM re Family Rsch Council
I took your advice and read a few sites claiming to debunk Paul Cameron's Research. Let's hope for your sake that the ones I found aren't representative.

The first was a blog by Dr. Herek, essentially sneering at the journals in which Cameron places his research. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_journals.html

Of course, one of Cameron's primary claims is bias in the research community on this topic. If that claim is true, then one of the consequences will be that only secondary journals will accept his research for publication. So Dr. Herek is positing an argument that bears no weight; it's true if Cameron's research is weak, but it's equally true if his research is correct. Ergo, it's not an argument at all. (In fact, if you understand systematic logic, you'll recognize Dr. Herek's argument as a classic ad hominem fallacy.)

The second was a bit more erudite, although the author, one Jim Burroway, did take the same ad hominem jibe as the last. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,018.htm

It begins as the last one did, with a shot at how the research gets published. This time, the ad hominem takes the form of a more serious ethics charge; the substance of the charge is that Cameron says he presented the paper at the Eastern Pyschological Association convention, but doesn't say it was a poster session. Of course, what the author of this piece proves is that the PRESS RELEASE by Christian Newswire omits a detail; did it omit it because Cameron omitted it, because the reporter was attempting to mislead, or because the reporter was sloppy? Burroway doesn't care. A careful researcher would have asked; BUrroway simply assumes it's Cameron who's at fault, and makes a rash accusation he simply can't prove. This is not the work of a careful researcher.

The rest of the article attempts to explain technical reasons why the data from Norway and Denmark are skewed to make it seem that gays are dying younger. It's a lousy argument, frankly; it simply changes the subject and presents a different set of data, and then posits an ASSUMPTION that older Danish gays didn't register as domestic partners when the laws changed. That may be true, or it may not be, but careful researchers don't assume things like this; Burroway does.

Short version: the first two attempts to rebut Cameron's research were not impressive, and were, in fact, both unscientific and wrong.

Should I read something else? Let me know, I'm actually interested in the truth, and I don't want to be either spreading or defending weak research, but so far, it looks to me (not just in this reading, but in prior work as well) that Cameron is absolutely correct: the research community is too biased to present the subject accurately.

The purpose of education
What is the purpose of education? To provide students with a base of knowledge and skills such that they will be participating, productive members of society through their line of work and through civil engagement.

Sex ed does not accomplish this end. Sex is not an academic subject. It does not have the formal, logical rigor of mathematics. It does not have the methodical, empirical approach of science. It does not provide a sense of hackground or cultural literacy that the narratives of history and literature do. It does not provide a grounding for good communication as grammar does. It does not provide them with a sense of how the state operates as civics does. In short, sex ed is absent of any academic value.

Rather, sex ed is a means by which one may inculcate students with certain ethics. One cannot live "mathematically," or "scientifically," or "historically" or "grammatically." One can certainly live "healthily" or "sexually."

Thus, these classes are not based in expanding an academically relevant knowledge base and skill-set, but rather are meant to dictate how one lives. These classes become a means for the left to indoctrinate students into having good nutrition, taking drugs (they pretend not to, but all you have to know then is not to, you don't need to know the intimacies of each one's effects), and promiscuity.

Borghe seems to believe...
...that science is magic. He thinks when a scientist discusses statistics, that automatically makes it impervious to criticism. He apparently doesn't actually read the analyses to which the statistics are attached. I do.

So when I went and read an analsys by a fellow named Burroway, who doesn't even bother to post his own credentials, and I observe that the central point of his analysis is an ASSUMPTION (which it is), Borghe says he uses "a scientificially proven method to read and analyze the data," namely, statistics.

The problem is, Borghe, that while there's a science to GATHERING statistics (which Burroway didn't do in this case), the discipline in which one USES statistics is caused "reasoning," and it's a tricky discipline in which which biased authors like Burroway don't do very well.

He doesn't PROVE older Danish gays didn't register, he tries to infer it from the data; and while "they didn't register" is ONE of the plausible explanations for why they didn't show up in the data, "they weren't alive to register" is ANOTHER of the plausible explanations, and he never gives us a reason to choose one over the other, he just assumes it. That's not science, that's wishful thinking.

(Here's the link again, for anybody who wants to read it. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,018.htm)

As to the other sources that allegedly debunk Dr. Cameron's research, I offered to read what others suggest I read, as I'm not familiar with the charges. My posts, above, were my assessment of the first two debunking articles I encountered, with which I was not impressed. If you have other, more robust critiques, I'll read them -- but from YOU, Borghe, I don't expect intellectual rigor.

Borghe, I'm used to your tone and style now. Let me guess:

1) You're gay. This, I infer from the automatic assumption that anybody who disagrees with you "hates gays", and the angry tone.

2) You're deeply, personally invested in proving that gay is normal. This, I infer from the way you show up and hurl vicious insults any time homosexuality is mentioned. There wasn't anything in the discussion to suggest anybody hates anyone, until you showed up; that was YOUR contribution.

May I politely suggest that you're too personally invested in the outcome of this discussion to engage in it reasonably and objectively? And may I suggest, further, that the interests of science are better suited if you therefore stay out of the discussion?

naked pagan
" Parents may teach the moral aspects of sexuality, but the phyiscal aspects should be taught by professionals who mantain currency it in the topic"

_Whoa. First off, how in anybody's estimation are grade school teachers qualified as 'professionals' when it comes to sex?? Unless you are suggesting that porn stars and prostitutes should be brought in to teach our children? Maybe Bubba as guest teacher?

See, with sex, no addtion to the childs' parents are needed for education. My evidence? They made a baby.

Currency in the topic? You'll have to elaborate on that one. As I see it the topic of sex hasn't changed since man's first copulation. So, the teaching I would give is simple, sex after, and only after marriage. Sex before marriage will always result in negative consequences, some merely emotional, some deadly.

"Guess you dont know everything, huh?"

-Ding ding ding!! Good guess. I do know however that indoctrinating children with a hedonist view of sex (teaching fisting, homosexuality, masturbation as accepted norms), is not what the government should be doing. In fact I'm not even a lawyer, and I think I could make a decent case suing the government for abusing its power, and stepping outside the bounds of its scope as defined within the Constitution.


"God doesnt SAY Natural Law, God SHOWS it. Teenagers can be parents because God allows this to happen. You cant change that. You can, however, make sure they understand what they are doing."

First off, with your moniker, I have to ask: which God? Zeus? Al Gore? Thor?
As to your last sentence, I agree wholeheartedly, but that is the role of the parents. It just is.

Throughout all of human history, it has been parents' responsibility to teach their children about life. It is their inherent obligation. This includes sex and related topics as well as basic human interaction (non-sexual), right and wrong, violence, etc...To think this new method, of pre-empting parents by deciding WHEN children are to be educated on the matter of sex, and WHAT topics are fit for discussion, is appropriate is beyond nonsense. It has proven to make matters much worse in the areas of teen pregnancy, STDs, and the casuality of oral and anal sex.

Meanwhile illiterate kids GRADUATE every year from our high schools, and we slip behind other civilized nations in areas of reading, writing, and arithmetic. So, as schools focus on more of what they shouldn't, our kids learn less of what they should. Seriously, the only strides made by this approach are kids sexually active much earlier in life, more of them getting pregnant younger, more STDs, and more and more stories every month of 12 year olds 'servicing' each other on school busses.

The theory was fine in its original intention. Theory has been proven for many years to be absolute bunk. Time to move on, and get back to what worked.....parents teaching kids about life, and teachers teaching kids about the "three r's".

Or better yet, parents doing both, and ALL public schools being closed forever.Plenty of data to show that would be an improvement as well.

RD

By the way, Borghe...
It turns out that Dr. Cameron has not been kicked out of ANY organization. There was a flap in 1982 in which he resigned from the American Psychological Association because he believed the organization had ceased to be a proper scientific support organization and had become, instead, a partisan, political entity (I concur with this assessment -- the APA is that). Though all ethics claims had been settled in his favor by the time he resigned, the organization turned around and voted him out (after he'd resigned) for "failure to cooperate with an ethics probe."

I've learned to do my homework and read the fine print when gay activists start trumpeting how some researcher or other has been "discredited." I can't speak for the field as a whole, but my experience as a reader and enthusiast for science leads me to charge that research and/or articles offered by gay activists are dishonest or inaccurate an enormous percentage of the time, and cannot be trusted. They seem prone to doing partisan smears.

naked pagan, RealityDweller
RD, nice post.

The invasion of government into the raising of children under the guise of "professional expertise" has been underway since the late 1960s. The goal is to make sure children don't reflect the "ignorance" of their parents (read, "religious training") but instead display a more current, secular view of life. It was a huge part of HillaryCare in 1993 as well; Hillary mandated government "professional oversight" of parents in the home. This is draconian tyranny, barely concealed.

naked pagan, please recall the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights: powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the state, or to the people. Recall that raising children is not enumerated among the powers of any branch of government. Please conclude, as we reasonably, must, that the government has no Constitutional authority to say word ONE about how parents raise their children -- and that includes teaching about sexual conduct.

Oh, and... YES, this also means that government-funded public education is very likely unconstitutional. But that's a different discussion.

Realitydweller
> Unless you are suggesting that porn stars and prostitutes should be brought in to teach our children?

Doctors and nurses, and professionals with access to the most current informaiton

>They made a baby
this type of short sighted thinking is part of the problem. I hope your just trying to make a joke.

>teaching fisting, homosexuality, masturbation as accepted norms

I dont recall having a class on fisting myself. Maturbation, however, is offical Army policy for soliders deploying, so I dont know why you think it is so wrong.

>I have to ask: which God?
Im a Unitarian, so its the same God as John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Issac Newton and John Locke. There is only one God, its your preception of him that changes.

Again, school teaches facts, family teaches morality.

>parents' responsibility to teach their children about life
Sure, and Parent form communities and pool resecoures to provide for the common good. Responsiblity cannot be delegated, but it can be shared.

> illiterate kids GRADUATE every year from our high schools,
So parents cant teach their kids to read, and thast okay, but now you want them to teach about sex as well?

Education is a joint partership between schools and families, with the school trying to make up where the parents falter. IF kids can read, its because the parents dont emphasis this at home, so asking these same people to teach about human sexuality is just asking for trouble.

Borghe
How cute! You have no counter-argument. Awwwwwww.

MALiberal:

Get the government out of public health - we shouldn't be stealing from some to benefit others. If government's going to serve the people, it ought to do so equally.

Get the government out of environmental health - get the free market involved with pollution permits rather than simply imposing quota systems so you can minimize the economic damage from stifling production.

Get the government out of protecting homosexuals - we should have equal justice under law. None of these nonsensical additional punishments for a crime being "hateful."

Get the government out of child welfare - once again, let's try to stop stealing others property.

Get the government out of public safety? Are you kidding? Conservatives constantly call for more police, harder law enforcement, and want to eliminate illegal immigration. And no, toll roads are not the free market at work. You're from MA, and so you should know that the MassPike was originally supposed to be a public road, and was paid off 10 years ago, but YOUR Democratist legislature refuses to open it up to the public DESPITE TWO VOTER REFERENDA MANDATING IT BE DONE. Democratic party? What part of it is democratic?

inkling_revival
>that the government has no Constitutional authority to say word ONE about how parents raise their children

You are free to home skol your kids if you want. While the Federal Constitution may not dictate state education, the state constitution is something else.

Whats your point?

naked pagan
"Doctors and nurses, and professionals with access to the most current informaiton"

Again what does this mean? Sex is sex, and has always been. What breakthroughs have their been which require 'current information'?


"this type of short sighted thinking is part of the problem. I hope your just trying to make a joke."

The glib way I delivered it was sort of joking. The idea is not a joke. The parents have been through the experience of copulation, gestation, and all of the situations that arise from sex. That makes them experts. That is why it always worked throughout history, and the new way does not.

"I dont recall having a class on fisting myself. Maturbation, however, is offical Army policy for soliders deploying, so I dont know why you think it is so wrong. "

Fisting is being taught in some schools now, but I used the extreme example to accentuate a point. I must ask how 'official Army policy' (I'm not sure this is the policy, but won't argue it), is in ANY way germaine to this discussion. Our military firstly, is comprised entirely of adults, our schools are comprised entirely of children. This sentence has no place in this discussion. Weird.

"Im a Unitarian, so its the same God as John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Issac Newton and John Locke. There is only one God, its your preception of him that changes."

Shouldn't you be 'naked unitarian'? Pagan sort of implies a belief in multiple gods. I realize there are other definitions, but the assumption will generally be the one I made. Just a note: Newton was a devout Christian. Here is a quote from the man: "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

"Sure, and Parent form communities and pool resecoures to provide for the common good. Responsiblity cannot be delegated, but it can be shared."

The scenario you have stated, although inherently socialist, does not exist in America. Parents have absolutely no say whatsoever in school cirriculum. Courts over and over rule in favor of the state over parents in this regard, sad as it is. This is the crux of the problem, parents should have total control over what is taught to their (not the state's) children, and they have NONE. NONE. I cannot possibly stress that enough. Responsible parents are forced to re-educate their children on matters where their beliefs differ from the secular doctrine, and of course, once a couple of drops of water are in the pool, their is no removing them. Kids can't unlearn any subjects that they were exposed to at too young an age.

"So parents cant teach their kids to read, and thast okay, but now you want them to teach about sex as well?
Education is a joint partership between schools and families, with the school trying to make up where the parents falter. IF kids can read, its because the parents dont emphasis this at home, so asking these same people to teach about human sexuality is just asking for trouble."

-I agree that parents today do not take their obligation to their kids seriously enough. This is partly due to the government taking that responsibility (wrongly) from them, and parents coming to depend on it.

Teaching kids to read, is one of the very few things schools should do. Why isn't that obvious??

RD










Getting serious about sex
Many of the problems TH readers have identified and discussed here can be addressed by something that conservativs should have been advocating all along. All levels of government should develop and implement laws and policies regulating sex. Enforcement should be swift and certain, and punishments should be severe enough to discourage the prohibited behavior. Here are some basic principles for such regulations:

1. No sex before or outside of marriage is to be permitted. Violators will be punished harshly.

2. No organization of any kind, except conservative Christian churches (see current approved list), shall be allowed to provide sex education.

3. Depiction of prohibited sex (see 1.)in any medium is itself prohibited, with appropriate punishments for those convicted of so doing.

4. Supervision of sexual practices within marriage will be the responsibility of the new Federal Bureau of Morals and Investigation. A list of acceptable and a list of prohibited sexual practices will be developed, with the assistance of conservative Christian churches.

Sounds good, sounds conservative. Think about it, TH readers, and see if you don't really want something pretty much like this.

Realitydweller
>What breakthroughs have their been which require 'current information'?

Aids and its treatment for starters, as well as other STDs. Birth control methods have also changed in the past 20 or so years, with the addition of products such as 'depro' Current laws should also be taught, because, even if a parent disagress with it, it is still a law.

If you had a comprehesive sex education, you would know this.

>all of the situations that arise from sex.
Really? every one has had an autisitc child? Everyone has had an aborttion, or a pap smear?
Everyone has come to terms with their sexuality?


>I must ask how 'official Army policy' is in ANY way germaine to this discussion.

Whats wrong with masturbation?

During our depolyment briefings, we were told to 'play with our selves and no one else' to prevent diease and pregnacy. Why should teenagers
be steered away from this behavior? Seems it would have a lot of benefits.

>Parents have absolutely no say whatsoever in school cirriculum.
They can always send their kids to a private school or home school, and the local PTA and parent organizations can have siginficant influance on what is taught at a school. Cant be lazy about it though, and if your too lazy to be involved with the school board, your too lazy to home school

>Shouldn't you be 'naked unitarian'? Pagan sort of implies a belief in multiple gods.

Pagan implied not beliving in the so called 'God of Abraham'. Its a pretty big tent,


>Teaching kids to read, is one of the very few things schools should do. Why isn't that obvious??

It is obvious, but you want to discount the influance parents have. If kids dont read at home, if education is not valued, then the children will be motivated to learn

inkling_revival
I was thinking a little more about what you wrote.

Sex education is run by the state. Right now, the Federal Government is paying for the State sex education if they have the Federal programs emphasising abstaince.

While some states refuse this funding, not all, espically poorer states, have.

So we can agree that abstaince-only education should not be taught in public schools, abeit for different reasons.

Inkling
Forget it man. You are trying to convince someone whose mind is made up. I can only assume these people have no children of their own or they are simply so in love with the state and have such faith in government that it has become their religion. I ROFLMAO when I hear pagan saying we need someone to teach our kids the latest in sex. Why? Why do kids need to know at all when all they do with this info at an earlier age is have sex at an earlier age? I would like one libdrool to name on thing the government has done, not including the military, that has worked well or solved the problem for which it was initiated. NSA at the airports, post office, Great Society, border enforcement? Name it - I'm waiting.

One last time naked pagan...
Aids, birth control, abortion these are your 'breakthroughs'? Parents may or may not want to teach there kids about birth control, consistent with their beliefs. Teaching it in schools opens doors which increase pregnancies, and disease (see the last forty years).

Leaving it to the parents is not only right, it works (see history prior to the last forty years).

Laws are for civics clsses, most have which have been removed from school, and replaced with details on how to perform sodomy in many cases.

Again, the Army thing has no relevence here. If you can't see the difference in an all adult, all volunteer employer, and an all child, all mandatory indoctrination center, I cannot help you.

As far as parental influence on cirricula, your 'two cents' about attending PTA and school board meetings is half-hearted at best. The PTA, teachers' unions, Planned Parenthood, A.C.L.U., and others have used the courts to overrule parents time after time. This is why home schooling is growing by leaps and bounds. Parents are tired of having no input as to the indoctrination of their children.

Again I agree that parents today in many cases do not prepare their children as well as they should. However, literacy rates were outstanding here in the U.S.A. just 30-40 years ago, and it had a lot to do with what schools taught.

My wife is a public school teacher, she currently teaches fourth grade, and has taught kindergarten. They are teaching kindergateners to use computers. Let that sink in. It is this kind of progressive idiocy that is ruining our future. I have no problem with kids learning to use computers, or even them learning this at school. This should only be taught however, after the child demonstartes abilities in basic reading, writing, and mathematics. You don't start with turning the double-play, you start with basics, hitting, throwing, and catching. Once one is competent in these, then more nuance and depth should be added.

RD


Realitydweller
>Aids, birth control, abortion these are your 'breakthroughs'?

BC would be a break though yes. With a simple shot a woman can avoid pregancy for 3 months. As for Aids, yes there have been breakthroughs in treatment. While you will still die a slow lingering death, with proper treatment, you can suffer that much longer. HPV is another diease that has new treatments for. Abortion, well, regaurdless of religious belief, you should know the laws in the state you live in. Sure, you can teach it in civics as well.

>Again, the Army thing has no relevence here
What I cant see is what you think is wrong with masterbation when it prevents exposure to diease and unwanted pregancies. Seems to be the answer to all your issues....it cant be physical harmful if the military encourages it for its soliders, so whats your issue with this?

If you cant accept that there is sexuality among teenagers, then you are just delusional. just ignoring it wont make it go away.

>As far as parental influence on cirricula,
Private schools and home skool is available. Yes. If your too lazy or ineffective to work with your local school, there are other options.

Pagan
I have attended numerous PTA meetings. Just so you know - they couldn't care less about what the parent thinks about anything. If you think you have any input into curriculum you are sadly mistaken. After all they have the same attitude as you - you all know better than me what my children should learn. Heaven forbid (I shouldn't say that in any discussion of government scholls should I?) they teach the kids how to read, write, and add or subtract (which most kids can't do anymore). Pull your head out and quit spewing unrealistic junk. If you're OK with yuor kid learning that stuff I feel sorry for you and he/she.

how about sex education vouchers?
RealityDweller writes: "First off, how in anybody's estimation are grade school teachers qualified as 'professionals' when it comes to sex?? Unless you are suggesting that porn stars and prostitutes should be brought in to teach our children? "

Well, there's a simple solution to that--the same voucher concept that conservatives have attempted to apply to public education:

If the parents are dissatisfied with the quality of the sex education classes being offered by the teacher or guest psychologist, the parents should have the option of a "sex education voucher": They should be able to take their child to their family physician or nurse practitioner or child psychologist and have the doctor give the child "the talk" and answer any questions the child may have about homosexuality or masturbation or anything else. After that, the doctor or nurse can sign the voucher and the parents can present it to the school in lieu of the child attending sex education class there.

Any qualified family physician can do a better job explaining the scientific side of sex than parents can.

How's that?

bobbit
I have kids, btw

>Why do kids need to know at all when all they do with this info at an earlier age is have sex at an earlier age?

Because once someone enter purberty, they need to know what they are capable of in time for it to do them some good. Cant help the fact you think they are too young, but Im not the one that made it so teenagers can have kids. Your issue is with God.

Pagan
I have attended numerous PTA meetings. Just so you know - they couldn't care less about what the parent thinks about anything. If you think you have any input into curriculum you are sadly mistaken. After all they have the same attitude as you - you all know better than me what my children should learn. Heaven forbid (I shouldn't say that in any discussion of government scholls should I?) they teach the kids how to read, write, and add or subtract (which most kids can't do anymore). Pull your head out and quit spewing unrealistic junk. If you're OK with yuor kid learning that stuff I feel sorry for you and he/she.

Pagan
Sorry about the double post. Dam* site! Listen the point is that if you think your kids should know then fine - you teach them. I don't think so - I won't. I don't want anyone else making that decision. What is so hard about that to understand?

All Social "Science" is Biased....
inkling_revival writes:... but my experience as a reader and enthusiast for science leads me to charge that research and/or articles offered by gay activists are dishonest or inaccurate an enormous percentage of the time, and cannot be trusted. They seem prone to doing partisan smears.
--------------

It is, sadly, true that this is true for much (all) of the social science research. Journals and professional associations have political agendas and support/print that which they agree with while condemning everything else.

The best example is the infamous Skoal article where a Physics professer literally fabricated an article as an experiment to see if a respected journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

Skoal's explanation of why/what he did:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/boghossian/papers/bog_tls.html




bobbit
>they couldn't care less about what the parent thinks about anything

They just dont care what YOU think, I suspect.
I went to a public school, parents, the tax payers, they could make things happen. Sure, the school is contrained by state law as to what they can and cant do in some cases, but if you dont think parents cant make things change,well, maybe its you.


>has worked well or solved the problem for which it was initiated.

Lets see..Marshall plan, that comes to mind off the top of my head..WPA, that was a good one, EPA has a number of successes, and the FDA seems to be keeping poison off of our shelves...are we talking Federal, State or Local?

See, government is like your heartbeat, you only notice it when it is not working.

Bring back gun instruction...
A century ago, every elementary school taught boys how to shoot .22 rifles. Many had rifle ranges in the basement, rural schools had an outdoor range behind the school.

Now why did schools go to "abstinence" education with guns? And why not with sex as well?

Or why not go back to weapons training in K12?
After all, kids are going to have/use guns so they might just as well do it safelty. And the argement against this is?????

bobbit
>What is so hard about that to understand?

That you think you are doing the best for your children, and then want them to remain ignorant about the basics of their own body, and moreso, want everyone elses kids to remain just as ignorant.

And when they have children, they wont have a chance to learn it because their parents are ignorant

Ignorace breeds ignorance.

Why you would want a society full of people ignorant about their own sexuality is beyond me.

Pirate
Actuall, I agree with you. Gun safety should be taught at a very early age.

>After all, kids are going to have/use guns so
This isnt true, of course. But they are around so Im sure they will come into contact with them at some level.

Inkling_revival
Now who's being dishonest or ignorant.

"The leading cause of death among Americans aged 25-40 is HIV."
I couldn't find support for this anywhere. The leading cause of death for young people is accidents. That is followed by, heart disease, cancer, and suicide.

http://www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/1173881560405CAUSOFDTH07doc.pdf

And, by the way, HIV doesn't kill people. People with HIV develop AIDS and then die from opportunistic infections.

As for HPV, there is now an immunization for HPV. I hope that most people will get themselves and their children innocluated.

As for herpes, it is declining among young people.
http://www.cdc.gov/STDConference/2004/MediaRelease/Trends.htm

So it seems that you are the one that is being dishonest or ignorant, so again I will ask you to follow your own advice.

A teacher's view
First, as a teacher, I won't teach sexual education. I've seen too many teachers and parents botch it with bad information or excessive embarrassment. I leave that job to Planned Parenthood. They do a wonderful job, they have the most accurate information, and they present it in a way that is logical and unbiased. Also, kids tend to accept the information better when it comes from a professional who deals with this every day.

I support sexual education in schools, because I've seen too much to think that abstinence only training is doing anything (and, in fact, the statistics agree. Kids that take abstinence only programs are just as likely to engage in sexual activity as those who are given contraceptive information). I've had parents ask me, "Do you really think they need to know about sex in 7th grade?" Considering we caught a 7th grader charging for oral sex behind the English classrooms, I'd say they need accurate information BEFORE then. And believe me: your kid may not be handing out sexual favors in 7th grade, but I bet they know who is. Whether or not your child is doing it, they are being exposed to a sexual culture. Being in a religious private school doesn't fix that either, in my limited experience. One of my girlfriends (a BFF, not a romantic girlfriend) went to a girls-only Catholic school. She got pregnant before she graduated (she also had some seriously inaccurate information on pregnancy prevention. I wish I had known before she got pregnant. Even at 16, I could have given her information that would have saved her a lot of pain).

Look, I know this is a touchy subject, but someone needs to educate our kids about sex. They need to know what's out there and how to protect themselves. Several people have said, "we don't teach kids about smoking, why should we teach them about sex?" But we do teach them about smoking. We teach them about the myths and realities. We teach them about the health hazards. We know that some of them will make the choice to smoke, and we educate them so they know what they're up against.

My own mother gave me "the talk" 2 years too late. Thank God my school provided me with information on how to prevent STD transmission and pregnancy before I became sexually active. In the schools I have taught in, it is statistically probable that between 1-3 students there are HIV+. I don't want my students to die because someone thought that denying them information about contraception would stop them from having sex.

How to tell you've got a teacher
Bananaphone: why? If someone's being promiscuous, gets an STD and dies, good riddance as far as I'm concerned. I'm not out to save people from themselves.

Kids are not morons. Government should not be trying to usurp or override the moral authority of parents, or trying to interfere with the ethics they wish to instill in their children.

You claim that sex ed will help prevent problems. I think if anything it increases problems by fostering an obsession with something already obsessed over. The same holds true for race. The more we focus and discuss it, the more it becomes obsessed over and the more people get worked up and create their own problems. It's self-perpetuating.

The solution lies not in educating oneself. Rather, "the fault lies not in our stars... but in ourselves." Reinstating a sense of restraint, maturity, good manners, public decency, and personal responsibility would work wonders.

naked pagan
Here is an exerpt from a post of yours to bobbit:

>they couldn't care less about what the parent thinks about anything

"They just dont care what YOU think, I suspect.
I went to a public school, parents, the tax payers, they could make things happen. Sure, the school is contrained by state law as to what they can and cant do in some cases, but if you dont think parents cant make things change,well, maybe its you."

Read what you wrote please. Don't you see how that sounds? This is the very point, they (PTA school boards, etc.) don't care what bobbit thinks. This is the case in every state of the Union. The stories are out there all the time. Your first sentence makes me think, that this is ok, as long as it's what bobbit thinks. Put yourself in the others shoes.

Were it any issue at all, and you believed strongly about it, would you want the government giving you the symbolic finger, and teaching your kids things that were against your very beliefs?

I will admit, that I truly doubt your ability to answer this honestly, but I will be eager to read your answer. As for parents making things change in regards to cirricula, you are living in a fantasy world, what you say sounds reasonable, but is NOT reality. They have NO INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER. NONE. Which is of course, a crime.

Sigh.

RD

Realitydweller
>don't care what bobbit thinks.

There are effective ways to regress grievances. Bobbit may lack the tools to do this though. I dont know enough about this persons situation or be able to judge this persons ability.

If this person just gets on a soap box and screams and rants during the school year after the fact will have a much different effect than someone who looks at the lesson planning cycle, attends school board meetings, enlists other parents and teachers support, and tracks what it going on druing the year.

Honestly, if what the school was teaching was mandated by state law and I found it offensive, I would discuss the issue with my child and explain to them why I belive what I do. Creationism comes to mind, although I belive that should be taught in public school as well.

I know parents could make a difference when I was in high school. I dont know what its like were your are...course, the school cant violate the law either, so depending on the issue, maybe the it is not fixable on the local level.

Bananaphone
>parents making things change in regards to cirricula, you are living in a fantasy world

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how much influeance parents have what is taught at school, and what rescoures they have to influance these issues?

naked pagan
to answer for bananaphone: NONE

But I already told you that.

And as for you not caring what he thinks, that is the crux my friend. Liberals rarely care for alternative points of view. In fact they want them buried, and destroyed. Try running as a pro-life democrat. or try to show peer reviewed data that clearly proves GW is a hoax at best, and not man made. Try to ask that Creationism be given even a nod at schools. Try to suggest that certain sexual acts may be deemed sinful by the religion of your choice.

Nope, liberals like yourself never care what anyone who doesn't agree with you thinks. Walk and think in lockstep, or get lost. That is un-American, and that is why this country is so far away from the beacon of liberty it once was....slipping further away all the time.

RD

curriculum control and lazy parents
You're right, Realitydweller. Parents don't really have any influence over curriculum in any subject. Even teachers have little control over curriculum. I have several public school teacher acquaintances and friends who have lamented this.

My neighbor across the street teaches Jr, math, my sister in law teaches first grade, a friend of mine taught third grade until a few years ago, and a close friend of another sister in law teaches sixth grade.

They have all told me that many of the methods and materials they are using are woefully inadequate to effectively teach the concepts the children need NOW and previous curriculum has left the MAJORITY of these children below grade level. (And people wonder why AZ public schooled kids test very close to the bottom of all 50 sates.) They have no control over changing it. If teachers don't have that control, then what makes parents think they do?

The vast majority of parents are too slow to take control and do whatever is necessary to give their children what they really need. We have all kinds of private schools, charter schools, and homeschooling options here in AZ. And yet, most parents would rather complain and whine than take action.

For some weird reason people who are dissatisfied with public schools think they have sympathetic ears among homeschoolers and those who pay for private schools. That's not usually true. We are people who deal in reality, not theory. Yes, theoretically the public schools should be providing quality education. As a whole, they are not in reality providing a quality education. So what is a parent to do?

Heaven forbid parents actually examine all the options and compare several institution's methods and materials. That would mean a significant effort and if there's one thing a government dependent parent hates, it's effort. And seriously downscale their lifestyle so they can afford different options!? That's crazy talk. All that just makes parenting sound like some big important deal involving personal responsibility-Jeez!

Realitydweller
>to answer for bananaphone: NONE

Why dont we let the experts tell us about the subject at hand? You never know, you may learn something.

>Liberals rarely care for alternative points of view

In this case, your alternate point of view is to let your children live in ignorance, and foster this ignorance over generations, about some of the most crucial aspects of our lives.

> Creationism be given even a nod at schools.
We did discuss this topic back in the day before it was repackaged and remarketed. They used the term 'spontanous generation'. Like I said, I would like to see it taught along side Evolution. It would be a good way to illustrate scientific thought.

>Walk and think in lockstep
This is really silly. Liberalism have a wide range of diverse ideas. By their very natural, they are anything that is not 'conservative'

I did give you an honest answer, btw. Too bad you dont accept it.

Homeschool Mom
>The vast majority of parents are too slow to >take control and do whatever is necessary >to >give their children what they really >need. ...most parents would rather complain and >whine than take action.

Which was (one of) my point(s)

Parental involvment is critical for a childs education. In a neighborhood I worked, it was a poor, ethicly homogenous area, but you could tell the kids whose parents cared about their upbringing, and those who did not.

Course, the problem with your public schools not having good text books is pretty easy. It would start with increasing funding for the school district.

Man what a circle..
naked pagan:

"In this case, your alternate point of view is to let your children live in ignorance, and foster this ignorance over generations, about some of the most crucial aspects of our lives."

My alternative point of view is nothing of the sort. It is to allow parents to do their job, that is, decide when and what to expose their child to, regarding sex, and sexuality.

Seriously, how can anyone object to that? It doesn't 'breed ignorance'. this is the way it has ALWAYS been done throughout ALL of history. What is new is the method you ascribe to. Allow government and special interest groups to decide when and what, NOT parents. YOUR method has gotten us higher pregnancy rates for teens, at earlier ages, more STDs, stronger STDs, higher abortion rates, and absolutely nothing positive. This stuff is so in-your-face-obvious, I'm begginning to think you know it, and want these disgusting side effects just to ensure liberal control of youth development. Hope I'm wrong.

"We did discuss this topic back in the day before it was repackaged and remarketed. They used the term 'spontanous generation'. Like I said, I would like to see it taught along side Evolution. It would be a good way to illustrate scientific thought."

It used to be discussed in schools, until *gasp* liberals decided to change the cirricula (they do that a lot). Now parents have no voice in this, as far as school is concerned. Btw 'spotaneous generation' was never a synonym for creationism, it was a flawed scientific belief (like Global Warming)that flies, and other insect vermin would appear out of nothing on meat left sitting out. Louis Pastuer, and maybe Ferme (?) disproved this. We now know that some spores and larvae are invisible to the naked eye.

I am encouraged that you would like to see creationism taught in schools. Now you know how I feel. Because it will never happen, you have no say in the cirricula either. See how that is wrong? We, as parents should be able to decide what is and isn't taught at school. Period. No one else. Yet it's exactly the opposite.

"This is really silly. Liberalism have a wide range of diverse ideas. By their very natural, they are anything that is not 'conservative'"

Not entirely sure what you were trying to say with sentence two here, but as to sentence one:I gave you no less than four indisputable examples of where liberals tolerate absolutely no dissention. You replied with zero counter examples. I could give dozens more. I bet you can't give me four. Liberals never tolerate diversity of thought. That is why Joe Lieberman is now a pariah. That is why you must be pro-abortion to be elected Democrat. Affirmative action, gay marriage, GW, War on Terror, as a liberal you are allowed only one point of view on all of these subjects.

Prove me wrong.

RD

Realitydweller
> It is to allow parents to do their job, that >is, decide when and what to expose their child >to, regarding sex, and sexuality.

>Seriously, how can anyone object to that?

Because you want them to be kept ignorant of things that are important to their lives.

> YOUR method has gotten us [insert standard mantra]

nonsense. Read the CDC links posted higher up.

>Btw 'spotaneous generation' was never a synonym for creationism, it was a flawed scientific belief

Its just repackaged. creationim. I dont see any differance. Expect that the people that studied it were open to the scientific method...so maybe thats the difference.

>Now you know how I feel. Because it will never happen,

Its a religous belief..specific religion should not be taught in public school. The reason I would like to see it taught is so students can see for them selves how it is flawed.

>I gave you no less than four indisputable examples of where liberals tolerate absolutely no dissention

You gave me your preconvied notions of what you thought liberalism was. Course, you thought you knew what a pagan was too.

> as a [liberal or conservative] you are allowed only one point of view on all of these subjects.

Dont confuse liberal with democrate. They are two different things.

>Prove me wrong
You are equvocating. Democrats area political party. Liberalism is a broad philosophical view point

Your really getting off topic here...I suggest you turn your computer off for a while and take a walk around the block so you can relax.

Not even close Naked Pagan
It's not FUNDING of textbooks. It is the QUALITY of materials AND methods. The math teacher I mentioned once told me he had 44 objectives to cover in his math class, but he thought only only 4 were important. The rest was, according to him, a waste of time.

We have excellent funding per pupil here. None of the teachers I mentioned ever cited a funding problem.

My husband's favorite aunt (a public school teacher for 35 years) responded to the news of our engagement this way, "Figure out how you will send your (future) kids to private school. The public schools don't know how to teach anymore. I can't wait to retire in 5 years. I'm teaching READING to my 8th graders. When I stared out all 8th graders could read."

Private schools and homeschools are able to provide quality methods and materials (which are producing higher test scores as a whole) at dramatically lower costs per pupil. Lots of parents at my church send their children to private schools in the area for less than the per pupil spending for the public schools here. Most of the private school teachers make less than public school teacher counterparts. We have a friend of the family who is one of those teachers. There simply isn't the same public funding and union lobby in the private school sector as there is in the parallel universe of public schools. It's NOT a $$$ problem.

Parental involvement and parental control are VERY different. I have the right to replace anything inadequate, incomplete, or in any way ineffective at any time. Parents of public schooled children do not have that right. Even the teachers don't.

Private schools are forced to appeal to parents by producing results or they will loose funding and close. Not true in a public school setting.

It is common in the homeschool community to have your kids at least 2 grade levels ahead of public schooled counterparts. If not, you are considered "bad press" for homeschoolers. That's how far behind the masses are.

It is now common where I live for homeschooled kids to start community college at 16 and transfer to state or private colleges at 18 and graduate at 20. There are so many homeschooled kids doing this in my area our local community college has a guidance counselor just for minors.




home skol mom
No need to get in a hissy, just trying to figure out the issues you face....

Course, seeing how education is run at the state level, you may have issues that my state may not, so its impossible to come to any conclusions that would hold true over the entire country...in short, your milage may vary.

Of course we do agree on a few things, one of them being Parental involvment is necessary for a good education.

I can see when it comes to upper level math or science, or dealing with learning diabilites, I can see it where it would be difficult to find the necessary rescources to deal effectively with this issues.

New bill being introduced in Senate...
by Seantor Vitter: it will end sex education by teachers and instead allow the class to be taught by true experts: high-priced escorts.

Morse makes breakthrough in biology?
"If she kicked her boyfriend out of the house, or if she married him, her probability of pregnancy drops to 12.9%."

Wow, I never thought the residency or marital status of an individual could affect their virility. I guess this will be tought in the new biology classes that ignore evolution.

naked pagan
Listen to the tyrant talking:

RealityDweller wrote: "It is to allow parents to do their job, that is, decide when and what to expose their child to, regarding sex, and sexuality. Seriously, how can anyone object to that?"

naked pagan replied: "Because you want them to be kept ignorant of things that are important to their lives."

And what, EXACTLY, naked pagan, makes it YOUR right to tell ANYBODY whether you approve of how they raise their kids or not? Who died and made you Parenting Sheriff? How many children have you raised, and how well are they doing?

This ignores the fact that you're just WRONG, that there's no indication that RD is depriving her/his children of ANY information they need, just presenting it in a different order and at a different time. But that's not the point. Those are HER KIDS, NOT YOURS. You stay the HELL out of her house.

Goddam Nazi.

Home School Mom
Preach it sister, can I get an amen?

and Naked Pagan--she wasn't getting hissy--just presenting the facts to someone who clearly hasn't researched homeschool alternatives, and is sold on the idea that the government school system is the way to go, and that it could be fixed with a few dollars more.


Last try
ok naked pagan

"Because you want them to be kept ignorant of things that are important to their lives."

- I want no such thing. You keep repeating that phrase, but of course provide no argument for it. Please read the following v e r y
s l o w l y: I want what America was when she was great;The sexual education of children to be the sole obligation of their respective parents. Not ignorance, not hidden mysteries, just what I said in the previous sentence.

You and I partially share a goal:to ensure that children in America understand the complexities, and potential consequences of sex. You want the government to dictate when this occurs, and what point of view (values) they should subscribe to regarding sex (like:sodomy is just as normal as heterosexual sex).

I believe the childrens parents are the ONLY people who should fullfil this obligation.

Liberal Mindspeak dictates that regardless of results, the ideas of the left must be adhered to in lock-step. Whatever the cost, the Marxist view MUST be adhered to and propogated.

Liberalism has failed everywhere. But worse, it has wrecked lives, and decimated populations in its wake. It has begun to do so here.

The (huge freaking 'G') Government of this nation no longer protects the right to private property (Kelo v. City of New London).

Liberals want to socialize medicine with universal healthcare.

They have dictated that there is to be a new definition of what marriage is (arrogantly overturning what has been accepted and not accepted for thousand of years)(Goodridge v. Department of Public Health).

They surrendered our control of cirricula, begginning with U.N.E.S.C.O., and continually with special (liberal) interests like Planned Parenthood & NARAL (abortion advocates)dictating what MUST be taught. They have removed parental input from the subjects taught in public schools (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health).

This is Big Brother, and done so gradually, Lenin would be impressed. Whatever you label it, it isn't individual liberty. It is not of the people, by the people, for the people. It is not American.

Time for dinner, and since you've proven to have nothing new to offer.Nor have you shown any capacity to observe, deduce, and form rational opinions (i.e. the current destruction being wrought by sex ed in American schools), I bid you good day.

Oh, and btw, as far as the special interests in control of the left side of the aisle, and as far as the left in power in American politics, liberal and democrat are absolutely synonymous. there is no party labelled 'liberal' but there is a party comprised entirely of liberals (it is an absolute membership requirement), and that is the democrat party. George W Bush, McCain, Graham, these are republican liberals (not all republicans are conservative).

It's like a disease....pervasive...spreading...dehabilitating...deadly.

beyond the pale
>clearly hasn't researched homeschool alternatives

Your right, I havent researched it. Did talk about it with my wife though....if we still lived in fundieville she would consider it, but right now we live in a perfectly fine school district

LIke I said before, with the lack of standardization, your milage may vary.

Is this a game to you, MikeH?
MikeH, after displaying his INCREDIBLE ignorance, posting "STDs are a much reduced problem" with a link to an article discussing the three "old school" STDs (syphilis, gonnorhea, clamydia) but ignoring the roughly 50 other STDs that occur in epidemic proportions, doesn't have the sense or the humility to acknowledge that he just muffed that one.

No, now he's going to pretend it's not a problem with a single newspaper article reporting the 2004 National STD Conference. MikeH says "See? genital herpes is going down!" And what does the article say? Down from WHERE? Does it represent the levels of these diseases compared to where they were 10 years ago? 20 years ago? What does it say about other diseases?

Go ahead and read his link, folks. Here's what it says: "Between the periods 1988-1994 and 1999-2000, the prevalence of HSV-2, the most common cause of genital herpes, declined 17 percent overall - from 21.3 percent infected with the virus to 17.6 percent." Genital herpes is down some, yes... "only" 17% of the population has it.

Yes, you heard that right. Nearly 1/5 of the US adult population has just this one STD, genital herpes. That's LOWER than it was in the early 90s. And MikeH wants us to believe STDs are a problem we've got a handle on.

And this: HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) is down a little; that's good. But down from WHERE? "Researchers at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center found that of 1,595 study participants, 30.2 percent of women and 18.7 percent of men had been infected with HPV-16, one of 10 high-risk strains of genital HPV associated with cervical cancer."

Yes, you read that right. Nearly 1/3 of women in the US have been infected with HPV-16, and that's just one of the strains of HPV.

We're in the middle of an EPIDEMIC, folks. And people like MikeH are out here telling us it's not a problem.

Mike, you should be arrested for criminal negligence. And if God is just, you'll answer personally for all the suffering by all the kids who suffer embarrassment, depression, infertility, and even death due to the STDs that liars like you say are a problem under control.

Telling kids how to have sex is INSANE.

o yeah...
anyone bothering to read earlier in the thread will of course see that I know exactly what a pagan is. I was just pointing out to you that by far the most popular of the word is: a worshipper of multiple gods, and you had stated that you believed in one god. So I asked a question.

Too confusing for you apparently. Sorry about that. Maybe it would have helped if you had been home schooled. ; P

Realitydweller
>- I want no such thing.
Okay, its an unintended side effect..but the fact is any medical or health issue is subject to change over 20 years, and professionals keep up on these changes.

>You keep repeating that phrase, but of course provide no argument for it.
I offered plenty of proof. By not wanting to present current and complete information to your children, you are encouraging ignorance, and not giving them the tools they need


> I want what America was when she was great;
When colored and women knew their place?

>I believe the childrens parents are the ONLY people who should fullfil this obligation.

I believe your are wrong for reasons I've already stated.

The rest is just ranting so far of topic it should be in another thread

Realitydweller
>I was just pointing out to you that by far the most popular of the word is: a worshipper of multiple gods

Sorry, thats a christian

Off topic to you....
is big picture to those who have no tunnel vision. The big picture is government (liberal, at that) removing personal liberties, freedoms and responsibilities from the people.

This thread is a debate on one of the many instances which are symptoms of the above mentioned 'big piture'.

Did I connect those huge obvious dots for ya?

"Okay, its an unintended side effect..but the fact is any medical or health issue is subject to change over 20 years, and professionals keep up on these changes."

Translation:

I, naked pagan, was speaking out my a** earlier when I said Realitydweller wanted "them [children]to be kept ignorant of things that are important to their lives." Also I believe I know what is best for everyone, including your children. Therefore, I will get those whom the government deems best to teach new sex techniques, contraception, baby killing methods, and availability, etc. to everybody's children, and have it paid for with everyone's money, even if they believe this is wrong.

Btw, I would like to know just exactly what a "colored woman's place" is?

Marxist, fascist, and now rascist. You are one sick puppie methinks Mr./Ms. Pagan


SteveL, same old horse plop
SteveL writes: "...the parents should have the option of a "sex education voucher": They should be able to take their child to their family physician or nurse practitioner or child psychologist and have the doctor give the child "the talk" ... Any qualified family physician can do a better job explaining the scientific side of sex than parents can."

Parents have access to such people if they want them. I can think of no legitimate reason why the state should intervene in the matter of teaching sex to children.

1) Raising children is the parents' job.

2) Parents are ENTIRELY competent to teach their kids what the kids need to know. If that were not so, the species would have died out by now.

3) The problem with sex is not lack of knowledge; everybody knows what it is, what's it's for, and how to do it by the age of 11 these days. The problem with sex is GROSS overexposure. It's a cultural obsession.

Pagan-you still miss my points
"I can see when it comes to upper level math or science, or dealing with learning diabilities, I can see it where it would be difficult to find the necessary resources to deal effectively with these issues."

If that is in reference to homeschoolers attending community colleges let me be clear:

These homeschoolers' kids are not attending community colleges so the parent can AVOID teaching upper math and sciences at the high school level -they are attending colleges because they have already COMPLETED the upper level high school math and sciences in their homeschools. There's a world of difference between the two.

As to special needs children: Homeschoolers hire the best professional to deal with issues, not the ones who couldn't manage to compete in the world of private practice, so they work for the public schools. Ask around at homeschooling groups where parents pulled their disabled kids out of the public system and finally started making HUGE progress in the private sector.

Another difference I think you may be missing is: You can participate in something you have no control over. I am a firm believer that parents should BOTH participate AND ultimately control all of the aspects of their child(ren)'s education. So, I'm not sure we agree at all.

The fact is, very few parents whose children attend public school know much of anything about the curriculum (methods and materials) being used. For the majority it is due to parental apathy. For those who are motivated and concerned it is indifference by the public schools toward parental authority. Presently here is no mechanism to change this other than removal from government schools.

Let's face it, most parents don't want to know how bad it is because they would have to do something about it. I read a fascinating poll that basically said the majority of parents believed that US public education was in crisis. A majority also believed their children attended a quality school. Ostriches.






Sex education
works best when parents teach their kids. Why isn't there a push for parents to educate their own kids about sex? For some posters here, it may be ok for a stranger to teach your kids about sex, but I obviously have higher standards than you. The problem is that libs think they know what's best for us and our children. I guess they expect their kids will need a condom at an early age. Thankfully, I can add the moral responsibility aspect to the sex education (that schools never seem to teach) when I talk to my kids.

inkling_revival
Find one quote from anything I have written that comes close to saying that STDs are not a problem. I have consistently pointed out that STD rates have dropped when comprehensive sex education is the main focus, therefore I think that comprehensive sex education should continue to be the focus and not abstinence only. I have backed this up every time with evidence from non-partisan sources. Something I cannot say about you. If you have any evidence that abstinence only education works or that taking sex education out all together would work, offer it so that we may see who is right.

You remind me of the adage: There are none so blind as those that won't see.

If anybody should be arrested for negligence, it is those who would keep life saving information from our children.

CT
"Thankfully, I can add the moral responsibility aspect to the sex education (that schools never seem to teach) when I talk to my kids."

I'm thankful that you can, too.

homeskol
You missed my point:

>they are attending colleges because they have already COMPLETED the upper level high school math and sciences in their homeschools.

I know I could never teach math effectivly. Oh I tried, but algerbra is a stuggle,and the more math you know, the better your chances are for success. Same thing that hits me with math gets me inother areas as well

>Homeschoolers hire the best professional to deal with issues,
Good, so you dont discount the need for
professionals. Course, my learning disablities were not recongized until it was way to late to do anything about it, and if all you have are untrained parents in a secluded envoirment, then its possible the children may not get the best attention when they need it.

>So, I'm not sure we agree at all.
not a micro managing control freak if that what you mean...but yes parents should be involved, but still let the teachers to their job.

>The fact is, very few parents whose children attend public school know much of anything about the curriculum
IT does take a lot of motivation, and even more if you want to do it yourself, yes I agree on these points too.

Realitydweller
Your the one that doesnt think America is 'great', and it was better before the civil rights act, before birth control pills, when the rest of the world was destroyed by a bitter war.

Im also not the one trying to keep information from your children that may save their lives.

> The big picture is government (liberal, at that) removing personal liberties, freedoms and responsibilities from the people.

Since the time you thought 'America was Great" we have had more Republican than Democratic presidents, and the current one has done his best to limit personal rights under the guise of a war time enviroment, but this is another topic altogether.

To Pirate
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I think you meant to be sarcastic about government. You suggested that the FDA has not policed our drug supply? Here's an example of what they've done. Do you remember Thalidomide? It was used in Europe to prevent the nausea of pregnancy. American women married to our military in Europe sometimes were prescribed Thalidomide. A woman scientist at the FDA, Dr Frances Kelsey, thought the drug was unsafe. It was: it caused babies to be born with arms that ended around the elbow. It was Kelsey's efforts at the FDA that kept Thalidomide from being marketed in the United States.

Unfortunately this and other federal agencies have been hamstrung since Reagan began the anti-regulation mania in Washington, and Bush II has made the situation worse by planting his people in the federal science agencies to make sure that ideology and business are nurtured at the expense of science.

Re Homeschooling
A couple of weeks ago there was a townhall thread about homeschooling. One poster said that the typical homeschooling parent is a high school graduate with either no college or just a year or two of college. (I don't know whether that's true; I am quoting.) This was hotly defended---we were told in other posts that graduate degrees in the subject taught (we were discussing high school) were irrelevant and far inferior to the natural teaching ability of parents, who should also design curriculum with no interference from the state. (Indeed, some states have no educational requirement for the homeschooling parent and do not mandate curriculum, testing, or record-keeping.) Parents, we were told, are the best judges of what their children should learn. How the parent is supposed to know what to teach when she herself is naive to the existence of the subject matter was not addressed, so I remained in wonderment.

Then, googling in the hope of informing myself, I found the website of the HSLDA, Home School Legal Defense Association. It begins with a long preamble basing the argument for homeschooling on the hypothesis that public school teachers lack academic preparation.

Both can't be right. The two positions are antithetical. It doesn't make sense to argue that a degree-prepared teacher is inferior to a non-degreed parent and also to argue that public schools are no good because the teachers don't have a strong-enough academic preparation.

In the midst of this I referred to the website PABBIS (Parents Against Bad Books in Schools) and remarked that the parent who wrote what appears on the website had made many syntactical errors and in particular didn't seem to know that a pronoun is supposed to agree with its antecedent noun; I gave illustrative examples.

Then a homeschooling parent responded to my post: "Who made up that rule and why should we follow it?".

Some homeschooled children do very well. I suspect we aren't hearing about the rest of them.


teacher cert/methods/private resources
lilly-

The argument is that there is no evidence available that a teaching degree and teacher certification increases the standardized test scores of school children. This has been studied by people in no way connected to the homeschooling movement. They use the standardized test scores of homeschooled children, private schooled children (many of whom are taught by people without teaching degrees), and public schooled children (all of whom are taught certified teachers with degrees).

A large section of the homeschooling movement is in general opposed to the modern teaching methods, (scope and sequence, textbooks, fill in the blanks, multiple guess, etc.)taught in most teacher training programs. This is not how great thinkers were educated.

I have personally met 5 homeschoolers with teaching degrees, certification, and classroom experience in both the public and private sectors. All said their teacher training was a handicap as homeschoolers, not a help. I have no idea if they are representative of the about 5% of homeschoolers who are certified teachers.

Many homeschoolers prefer older teaching models like the Trivium or Socratic methods and a "Living Books" approach. Instead of a textbook on the subject (which is distilled, overly simplified and compartmentalized) the children read many of the books an author would read in researching textbooks with a strong preference for first source materials when available.

The other argument is that homeschooled children, regardless of parental education, (high school graduates to certified teachers) outperform their public schooled counterparts on the whole on standardized testing. Some people claim homeschoolers who take standardized tests are self selected, but that is not true because testing requirements vary dramatically from state to state, so self selection is not possible for many of them.

The idea that a parent is completely naive as to what subject matter to cover when only shows your ignorance of what typical homeschooling materials are available. Whatever method is being used (there are roughly 6), there are all kinds of resources outlining each aspect of each subject and loads of resources that cover each specific element. Just because you are unaware of them does not mean they don't exist.

Not all homeschoolers design all their own curriculum. Actually, it is extremely rare to find homeschoolers who do. Who has the time for that? When they are, they are usually unschoolers who are by no means the majority and by many state legal definitions not recognized as homeschoolers. HSLDA often does not defend them because of this.

Yes, there are homeschoolers who are not doing well, they usually don't last long. Most people eventually jump a sinking ship.

I think the public schools have a bigger reputation across the board for being in crisis than the homeschool movement.

Naked Pagan

I am amazed people use this type of argument. "I can't imagine myself teaching this subject, therefore, most other people couldn't teach it either."

Again there are huge amounts of resources available to homeschoolers in this area. Our math program which demonstrates every concept concretely all the way through high school level math (http://www.mathusee.com) is just one of many with a teacher's manual and demo DVD for using the math manipulatives. Sure, if you graduated from high school you can easily divide fractions and do algebra, but this is a different approach-this shows a parent (and the private school teachers using the program)how to verbalize, concretely demonstrate, AND write the calculations that are happening. It also focuses heavily on knowing when and how to apply those math skills in real life scenarios.

Most public school teachers were not taught how to concretely demonstrate abstract math concepts like dividing fractions and algebra. One public school teacher got so fed up with the mess it left his students in, he created this program. Well, homeschoolers ate it up. Since public school teachers can't change their curriculum, their kids are stuck and are often not doing as well.

Saxon math is another example. Widely used in the homeschool community and private schools, it is another math manipulative approach that has fantastic results. Too bad the public system won't change because the US is really far behind the rest of the world in this area.

Did I mention Singapore Math? Singapore is the highest scoring country in international math testing. There is a curriculum available here to teach math the way those with the greatest success are teaching it. What a concept-go with what produces the best results.

What makes you think homeschoolers are in a secluded environment? Yes there are the rare "bomb shelter" types, but most are very active outside the home. Homeschoolers on average are involved in more out of the home activities because we have flexible schedules.

NATHAN is a nationwide network of parents homeschooling special needs kids of all kinds and they have a tremendous amount of resources and networking available. Just because you couldn't imagine it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Here's something new for those who are government dependent-there are private resources available to parents outside of the public school environment. I know that may shock some of you.

A close homeschooling friend uses a privately hired speech pathologist. Imagine that-the public schools are not The Source of All Things Necessary! There's a whole world outside the school doors to be utilized.

My kids go to their pediatrician for hearing tests, and have eye exams by optometrists. My kids can be evaluated by private tutorial sources if I think they need it and I can even go to several different private schools to have my kids take the Stanford 9, ACT, SAT, and other tests. Imagine that!

Parents of private schooled children manage these kinds of things too.

support and rebuttal
STOIC PATRIOT:

"Bananaphone: why? If someone's being promiscuous, gets an STD and dies, good riddance as far as I'm concerned. I'm not out to save people from themselves."

SIR, we are talking about the lives of children here. 11-14 year old children. How dare you?

NAKED PAGAN (sorry for taking so long to respond, I am on vacation)

"Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how much influeance parents have what is taught at school, and what rescoures they have to influance these issues?"

As to influencing what topics are taught at what age, parents have no influence at the school or district level (and neither do I. The state standards are dictated to us, as Homeschool Mom stated, and we are bound by contract and by test scores to teach them). As to what resources are used to teach the dictated standards, parents are very influential in the process. We have parent representatives during school leadership meetings, on textbook adoption committees, and often it is the parents, the PTA and the Parent Grant Funding team that gives us the resources we cannot afford to buy with our own funds. We listen closely to what they say (Seriously, we do, no joking or sarcasm), though I will also allow that I have worked in schools where parents are excluded from the process. These settings tended to be highly urban and low income in nature (it was also in schools where the funding was the lowest I've ever seen: $100 per classroom per year for 210 students).

Thanks for your posts with Realitydweller. I would have responded in turn, were I here. I agree with you 90% (the final 10%, on homeschooling, I will address below).

HOMESCHOOL MOM:

Very nice arguments! I am still out to lunch on homeschooling vs. school-setting education. Up until the past 3 years, the only home-schooled children I had experience with were the children of raving fanatics who tore up my science classroom with religious rants. However, in the last few years, I have met home-schooled individuals who were highly intelligent, widely read, well reasoned and exceptionally well educated. One student in particular, an 8th grade boy, had a well of knowledge on physics deeper than mine own. For obvious reasons, I do not come into much contact with home-schooled children, so I admit that my perception of them is probably skewed. Because your posts remind me of this, I will look into this issue and educate myself better on this topic (not being snarky at all: you remind me that I only have a small part of the story). I will agree whole-heartedly that, for parents interested in providing an exceptional education for their children and who are willing to spend a great deal of their own time and money on, home schooling can provide that and I commend you for supporting that goal. I worry about the children of religious fanatics though.

Thank you for your input. You have made me think.

REALITYDWELLER:

sigh. Where to start? In large part, Naked Pagan has already addressed most of your arguments, but please allow me to add my voice in tandem with his/hers.

"YOUR method has gotten us higher pregnancy rates for teens, at earlier ages, more STDs, stronger STDs, higher abortion rates, and absolutely nothing positive."

I would argue that "Abstinence only" training, which has the only sexual education available to my students recently, has created this problem. Under abstinence training, I have heard such viewpoints as "I heard you can't get her pregnant if you rub it against her", "Are Siamese Twins punishment for doing it too early?", and "I used Saran Wrap from my mom's kitchen. It worked."

This NEEDS TO STOP.

"Liberals rarely care for alternative points of view. In fact they want them buried, and destroyed. Try running as a pro-life democrat. or try to show peer reviewed data that clearly proves GW is a hoax at best, and not man made. Try to ask that Creationism be given even a nod at schools. Try to suggest that certain sexual acts may be deemed sinful by the religion of your choice."

Point of Clarification: as a liberal myself, I care greatly for different points of view. As Voltaire is attributed to say, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". If you believe that abortion is death, if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, if you believe that walking around naked while singing the chicken dance is your religious right, I will support your right to believe so, even if I disagree with you. What I do dispute is your right to pass laws that force me (or your child, the budding adult that they are) to behave and believe as you do.

The same is true for sexual education. If you prefer to educate your child yourself on this point, you need only sign the form and I will not expose your child to my teachings on this topic (this right is protected by law). What does bother me is that this opens a child to a variety of different abuses. Parents of a child can choose to expose their child to damaging religious practices that harm their child's natural sexuality, or choose to provide no education to the child. While I may not agree to this practice, I have no right to oppose this practice, nor will I support any legislation that gives me that power. I do, however, worry that your right to educate (or mis-educate) your child as you see fit will impact the life of another person. Sexual intercourse, after all, includes two different people.

It is interesting that you bring up Creationism. I personally believe that Creationism is an appropriate topic for schools.....in a theology class. Creationism does not belong in a science classroom because the hypothesis of Creationism is just that: a hypothesis. In order to become a theory, Creationism must go through the gauntlet of scientific criticism that all theories have to go through. Only when it has emerged from that gauntlet, unscathed and undiminished, may Creationism assume the mantle of Theory that it pretends to now. In my science classroom, I freely admit that Darwinism is only a theory. Theories have been proven incorrect before, and I admit that to my students. But, a theory has passed that scathing test. Creationism has not passed even that, and until it does, it has no place in my curriculum. But, I will happily speak in a theology class and try to pass the gauntlet they prepare for me.
(I apologize for getting off-topic,l but this point always bothers the scientist in me).

Do not project your narrow-minded view on myself. I believe you should be allowed to think as you do, regardless of what I think of your opinion. If I believed differently, I would not be posting here. Debate and dissent are the very heart of our democracy. However, while I will defend your right to believe as you wish, I will defend my right to disagree with you.


fanatics/real issue/my website
Bananaphone,

Fanatics

Religious fanatics are a fact of life. We're not crazy about them either-mostly they are a boil on the butt of mainstream homeschoolers because people associate them with us all the time.

I attended a panel of recent private and state college graduates who had been homeschooled K-12. They were all from devout fundamentalist Christian homes and all warned us to make sure our homeschooled children could engage in intelligent, reasoned, civil discourse on these types of topics because emotional tirades are a bad reflection on all religious people. We are aware of the problem but out influence is limited.

There is a hilarious scene from "Mean Girls" that most homeschoolers LOVE! (If a homeschooler doesn't think it's funny it's probably because it hits a little too close to home.) It demonstrates the negative PR we have to constantly correct.

Lindsay Lohan's character says something like, "I've been homeschooled my whole life, I know what you're thinking..." Then they cut to a scene in the woods with a homeschooled boy in dirty overalls and an awful drawl who says, "And on the sixth day God created Smith and Wesson so man could fight the dinosaurs..." Then Lohan says quickly, "Not THAT kind of homeschooled." That is what we mean by "bomb shelter" homeschooler types.

That Scripps Spelling Bee winner has ticked off a lot of homeschoolers. Social retardation is more bad press for us.

The 8th grade kid with the physics knowledge probably read Richard Feynman's writings. Our girls will read them along with their physics studies.

I am the first to say homeschooling is not for everyone and it is not for the majority. It is a commitment that affects every aspect of your life, requires complete dedication, and continual research. Having self discipline and self motivation is key also. Dabblers need not apply.

I also agree with our homeschool lobby here in AZ. They will never support legislation that provides taxpayer dollars to homeschoolers in any form including tax credits. We firmly believe homeschooling should remain a completely private activity with completely private funding.

There have probably been a dozen times I wished I could tell people they are not really very good candidates for homeschooling or I wanted them to keep the fact that they homeschool a secret.

The Real Issue

1. To whom do children belong? Parents? The State?
2. Should the state account to parents for what the state is teaching children?
3. Should the state account to the feds for what it is teaching children?
4. Should parents account to the state for what they are teaching children?

The answer to those questions quickly identifies the Socialists among us.

My Website

My website is finally up and running. http://www.lisa.crews-family.org It covers basic topics like the different methods homeschoolers use, the different mindsets in the community, and general information to questions people continually ask me. (I had been asked to blog by townhall.com, but this had been in the works for a while.)

It is a work in progress and my time is limited, but I try to add to it weekly. I tried to accurately and respectfully represent different groups. Since I live in the most densely populated homeschool community in the country, I get to see the entire spectrum. (Maricopa County has 13,000+ registered homeschoolers.)

I am part of the Classical Education Homeschool community and I cover that topic while highlighting some particularly good resources I have personally used. Feel free to browse and leave your thoughts on the "Discussion" pages.





Bananaphone
Firstly, you may want to read this thread again, as you will clearly see that naked paga addressed almost noen of my points (and there were many many).

--"I would argue that "Abstinence only" training, which has the only sexual education available to my students recently, has created this problem. Under abstinence training, I have heard such viewpoints as "I heard you can't get her pregnant if you rub it against her", "Are Siamese Twins punishment for doing it too early?", and "I used Saran Wrap from my mom's kitchen. It worked." "

Abstinence only sex ed is not available at ANY public school in the US. See the reason abstinence ALWAYS works, 100% of the time, is that no preganancies, STD transmission, or abortions EVER result from it.

Any teaching method for any social behavior, must be accompanied by a larger cultural component to be effective at a high rate. So as long as we encourage the termanation of unwanted unborns, the acceptance of pre-marital or extra-marital sex, the thought process that says: oral sex isn't sex (you no who),sodomy is nromal sexual behavior or any other immoral sexual behavior, kids will be participating in all of these behaviors.

If we as a society make an effort to return to the above things being 'taboo' they will still occur (they always have at some level), however they will occur in very small numbers.

There was teen sex, teen preganancy, teen abortion, teen sodomy, and teen STD transmission prior to 1960, it was just very rare.

Then the teaching methods for sex ed that you and the "naked pagan" espouse to began to be instituted. As a nation, by the end of the sixties we began to embrace birth control methods beyond the condom. Drinking and drug use became prevalant throughout our culture, leading of course to all sorts of sexual debauchery.By the middle of the 90s, not only did we have a US Surgeon General advocating the use of bannanas to demonstrate oral sex in the classroom, but there were no more public school cirricula which taught abstinence only.

Since that generation will not as a whole accept guilt or take responsibility, they will not admit mistakes, or sins. So we then have justifications. '"Sodomy is normal." "I'm not killing my baby, I'm excercising my reproductive right!." "I can do whatever I want with my body" "it's only sex" "Oral sex isn't sex" etc......

See, liberal ideology has near destroyed what was good about American culture. The traditions that were celebrated by America came with some taboos, but we have since learned that they were not only sensible, but an integral piece of what allowed us to have a cohesive, proper and safe society.

Liberals "freed" us from those taboos, and now kids don't have two parents anymore. Mothers just do away with their babies so they don't put a cramp in their lifestyle. People put ballons on their genetallia, and are told that they can have sex with anyone of anysex, and they will not get disease, or unwanted pregnancies. Or they get high or drunk, and do it sans ballon.

If these items, and their relationships to each other, and to the way we set out to teach our kids, don't make sense to you, you'll probably never understand societal evolution. Cultures are firmly based in traditions. Change of any sort (bad or good) that is major, can be directly traced through cause and effect.(read up on Amish culture when you get a chance, and compare their teaching methods to ours, and then compare their teen sex problems with ours, and you might understand what is possible with a moral approach to life)

Liberals rarely see this, and they just grab at solutions and ideas that make them feel better, as long as they can feel a litlle rebellious at the same time. When their ideas eventually prove to to nothing but detriment, and they ALWAYS do, they blame someone else, or deny their failure, or both, and learn nothing.

--"If you prefer to educate your child yourself on this point, you need only sign the form and I will not expose your child to my teachings on this topic (this right is protected by law)."


There is no such form (or law) Mr/Ms phone. All public schools decide, without parental input what and when to teach our children. And all of them teach sex ed. None of them should, ever, even at parental request. This is far outside of their scope, and squarely within the sole scope of parents' duties.

"What does bother me is that this opens a child to a variety of different abuses. Parents of a child can choose to expose their child to damaging religious practices that harm their child's natural sexuality, or choose to provide no education to the child. While I may not agree to this practice, I have no right to oppose this practice, nor will I support any legislation that gives me that power. I do, however, worry that your right to educate (or mis-educate) your child as you see fit will impact the life of another person. Sexual intercourse, after all, includes two different people."

See this type of thinking is what is needed. The naked pagan, and other liberals would never agree with you. Your fears expressed here make very little sense to me, but you are not advocating the removal of my parental obligation, and replacing it with your own ideas. This article, and this entire thread would never exist, if people could just see the wisdom you and I share here.

Btw, thanks for offering to defend my right to speak, and believe differently than you. I believe "narrow minded" was unfair of you, since I have merely been advocating that parents should have sole discretion on when and what their children learn in regards to sex. This is the only way to honor the various and diverse beliefs that are held by all the different peoples of this great nation. That's not narrow minded, that's American, and that's protecting the rights and liberties of all, while infringing upon NONE.

Naked pagan's view of forcing all children from anywhere in America (regardless of their traditions and beliefs) to learn what the government wants (plus Planned Parenthood, et al) and when to learn it, with regard to sex, that is "narrow minded", and un-American.




Whew
The above post was written at the end of a long day. The result is numerous misspellings. For this I apologize. Heck, it's the substance that matters anyhow.

RD
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone: