Ohio Chatter DEV

I Wear Pants

Shane Falco;695131 wrote:Why spend money for sex ed?

Have sex between male and female = chance of baby!
DON'T have sex between male and female = NO CHANCE of baby!

Pretty simple if you ask me! NO ?

Cut it all and cut it now!

This is dumb.

STDs don't exist right?

sleeper

I Wear Pants;695137 wrote:This is dumb.

STDs don't exist right?

Kids should be taught to wait til marriage. That is reality. No sex before marriage = no chance of STDs

tk421

And the people who don't want to get married?

Shane Falco

Oh sorry! I forgot...

Sex = chance of std's
No sex = no chance...

Still not that hard to figure out.....well at least for those of us that aren't simple minded!

sleeper

tk421;695168 wrote:And the people who don't want to get married?

I was being sarcastic.

Timber

Shane Falco;695172 wrote:Oh sorry! I forgot...

Sex = chance of std's
No sex = no chance...

Still not that hard to figure out.....well at least for those of us that aren't simple minded!

Unless one is dealing with President Clinton

Because apparently having sex... means one is not having sex? It can be confusing.

CenterBHSFan

Timber;695205 wrote:Unless one is dealing with President Clinton Because apparently having sex... means one is not having sex? It can be confusing.

Well, there's "having sex" and then there's "having sexual relations (with that woman!)"

Writerbuckeye

CenterBHSFan;695216 wrote:Well, there's "having sex" and then there's "having sexual relations (with that woman!)"

Thanks to the Horny Hick from Hot Springs, a whole generation grew up thinking oral sex wasn't really sex.

Now we're looking at a possible epidemic of throat cancers due to HPV as too many people are swallowing instead of spitting.

I Wear Pants

Shane Falco;695172 wrote:Oh sorry! I forgot...

Sex = chance of std's
No sex = no chance...

Still not that hard to figure out.....well at least for those of us that aren't simple minded!

Or we could do something that's actually effective as 1: We all know people don't wait for marriage and 2: Just because you want to wait until marriage to have sex doesn't mean it's wrong if someone else doesn't.

Shane Falco

Please show me where I said anything about waiting for marriage! Geez people! You ever bought a pair of shoes without trying them on first?

What I said was...
Sex between man and women - chance of baby!
NO SEX between man and woman I NO chance of baby!.

Sex with any one - chance of STD!
NO sex with anyone - NO chance of STD!

Is this seriously that complicated, or are a couple of you just the examples of all the wasted $$$ in the education system??

CenterBHSFan

Shane Falco;695560 wrote:Please show me where I said anything about waiting for marriage! Geez people! You ever bought a pair of shoes without trying them on first?

What I said was...
Sex between man and women - chance of baby!
NO SEX between man and woman I NO chance of baby!.

Sex with any one - chance of STD!
NO sex with anyone - NO chance of STD!

Is this seriously that complicated, or are a couple of you just the examples of all the wasted $$$ in the education system??

It's seriously that complicated

FatHobbit

Shane Falco;695560 wrote:Please show me where I said anything about waiting for marriage! Geez people! You ever bought a pair of shoes without trying them on first?

What I said was...
Sex between man and women - chance of baby!
NO SEX between man and woman I NO chance of baby!.

Sex with any one - chance of STD!
NO sex with anyone - NO chance of STD!

Is this seriously that complicated, or are a couple of you just the examples of all the wasted $$$ in the education system??

You should try to get a grant so you can go to all the Ohio schools and explain that to the kids. lol

I Wear Pants

Shane Falco;695560 wrote:Please show me where I said anything about waiting for marriage! Geez people! You ever bought a pair of shoes without trying them on first?

What I said was...
Sex between man and women - chance of baby!
NO SEX between man and woman I NO chance of baby!.

Sex with any one - chance of STD!
NO sex with anyone - NO chance of STD!

Is this seriously that complicated, or are a couple of you just the examples of all the wasted $$$ in the education system??

But that isn't effective dude.

So you educate people so that they can have sex as safely as possible. You can't be that naive.

O-Trap

sleeper;695154 wrote:Kids should be taught to wait til marriage. That is reality. No sex before marriage = no chance of STDs

Theoretically, teaching that you should wait until you're ready (financially, emotionally, etc.) to have a baby should wait, and that the risk of both pregnancy and STDs exists even with the use of condoms and other forms of birth control.

However, it should also include proper information on said birth control, and the dangers of people trying their own "home" methods (bleaching was one I found particularly disturbing).

The bottom line, though, is that if teens are instructed properly, and they still lack the self-control to avoid STDs or pregnancy, I as a person without fault in that circumstance should not be obligated to bear any of that burden, financial or otherwise.

I Wear Pants;696184 wrote:But that isn't effective dude.

So you educate people so that they can have sex as safely as possible. You can't be that naive.

The naivety exists just as much with the kids engaging in sexual activity. To me, the argument that "kids will be kids" doesn't fly. There still has to be responsibility there, and if it is ignored, there still has to exist the truth that "when it's your mess, it's your responsibility to clean up" or however that can be otherwise stated.

I don't mean to sound curt, and my wife and I are actually in the process of helping a local teen girl who is now pregnant (she's 17 and a freshman in HS) as much as we can. We cook for her. We help her with her homework (so she can get into college). We'll be watching her baby when it comes, and we've even paid for some of her doctor visits. My point, though, is that it should be our choice to do that.

Shane Falco

Not naive! If I tell you that if you place your hand on a hot oven burner you will get burned, would you believe me? I would think you would right? So how come its so difficult for you or some 15/ 16 year old kid to understand the whole sex/ no sex thing?

Don't really see the need to spend a whole lot of $$ on something so simple to understand but that's just me, so if your other way, then that's your problem to figure out!

I Wear Pants

Shane Falco;696427 wrote:Not naive! If I tell you that if you place your hand on a hot oven burner you will get burned, would you believe me? I would think you would right? So how come its so difficult for you or some 15/ 16 year old kid to understand the whole sex/ no sex thing?

Don't really see the need to spend a whole lot of $$ on something so simple to understand but that's just me, so if your other way, then that's your problem to figure out!

Show me anything that suggests that cutting programs like PP and sex education would help prevent unwanted/teen pregnancies and STDs.

We should be doing what's most effective, not what a certain subset of the population believes is "right".

You'd think that kids would understand artithmatic and science too but they don't.

And O-Trap, ""when it's your mess, it's your responsibility to clean up". Sure that is all well and good. But if I watch someone slowly back into the mop bucket while there cleaning and it spills over I'd feel a bit responsible because I could have said "hey, maybe you want to watch where your stepping or move the bucket". Same thing applies to us as a society making available the means and knowledge to have safe sex practices.

I care about it less for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies because while that is a problem we should try to address it doesn't always end negatively. STDs is why I care about these sorts of programs.

majorspark

I Wear Pants;696459 wrote:But if I watch someone slowly back into the mop bucket while there cleaning and it spills over I'd feel a bit responsible because I could have said "hey, maybe you want to watch where your stepping or move the bucket" Same thing applies to us as a society making available the means and knowledge to have safe sex practices.

Your analogy would be teaching abstinence. "Move the bucket" or "watch where you are stepping" and move around the bucket. In other words avoid the bucket. You should have said "here let me get you a pair of rubber boots so when you knock the bucket over your feet will not get wet". Just sayin.

I Wear Pants

My point wasn't the direct comparison of the situation but that merely standing by and watching something happens that you could have prevented without some herculean effort I believe is at best not very nice.

elbuckeye28

Shane Falco;696427 wrote:Not naive! If I tell you that if you place your hand on a hot oven burner you will get burned, would you believe me? I would think you would right? So how come its so difficult for you or some 15/ 16 year old kid to understand the whole sex/ no sex thing?

Don't really see the need to spend a whole lot of $$ on something so simple to understand but that's just me, so if your other way, then that's your problem to figure out!

First of all, that is about as bad of an analogy as possible as consequences of touching the hot stove are immediate and certainly negative. Obviously a teenager can comprehend that touching a hot stove will offer no positive outcome, and the negative consequences will be felt almost simultaneously to the actually touching. That is usually figured out by children no more than a couple years old.

Now compare that to sex. There is a real and immediate positive gratification. In addition, it is satisfies one of nature's more innate yet strongest urges. Moral and psychological differences aside, there are many biological factors that are contributing to these urges. In addition, the negative consequences (pregnancy, STDs, negative emotional effects) are delayed and not continuous. Therefore, the positive effects are immediate and consistent, while the negative effects are delayed and inconsistent.

Try persuading teenagers(or adults for that matter), that something that satisfies natural urges and feels good should be delayed for another 5-10 years(or whenever they get married), by just offering a moral argument that may be very inconsistent to their own worldview. Research supports that it isn't very effective, and they are going to do it anyways without the requisite knowledge of the safer methods. At least there is evidence that by offering comprehensive sex education, there is an increased usage of safe sex methods.

O-Trap

I Wear Pants;696459 wrote:And O-Trap, ""when it's your mess, it's your responsibility to clean up". Sure that is all well and good. But if I watch someone slowly back into the mop bucket while there cleaning and it spills over I'd feel a bit responsible because I could have said "hey, maybe you want to watch where your stepping or move the bucket". Same thing applies to us as a society making available the means and knowledge to have safe sex practices.

I agree. However, if I or someone else has told the person the bucket was there, and they spill it because they ignore this advice, I am not at all responsible to help them clean it up.

Pre-pregnancy and pre-STD education is incredibly important, given the misinformation that flies around high school age students regarding sex. Supporting them after they've felt the effects of sex (which sometimes are not prevented by "safe sex") before being ready ... not anyone else's responsibility.

I Wear Pants;696459 wrote:I care about it less for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies because while that is a problem we should try to address it doesn't always end negatively. STDs is why I care about these sorts of programs.

See, I care just as much about unwanted pregnancies, because that will bring more children into the world who are supported by ill-equipped mothers and/or fathers who, even though they aren't ready to be parents, made a choice to have sex, knowing that even safe sex is not 100% "safe" from anything. That perpetuates a cycle.

I Wear Pants

What's perpetuating the cycle is pretending that people are going to listen to anyone who tells them not to have sex unless they want a child. That's not reality.

All we can do is try to best make sure that people/teens are knowledgable of how to have safe sex (yes, yes we know their effectiveness is only in the high 90 something percent not 100%) and best advise them so that they're likely to use these methods.

believer

I Wear Pants;696833 wrote:All we can do is try to best make sure that people/teens are knowledgable of how to have safe sex (yes, yes we know their effectiveness is only in the high 90 something percent not 100%) and best advise them so that they're likely to use these methods.

YOU can use your money to point out common-sense to those who choose to ignore it. Just don't expect me to spend my money on it.

CenterBHSFan

1. So the consensus is that teenagers just aren't going to "listen" and do what they want anyway, so let's just throw more money at it?

2. If I had to choose to keep throwing my money at sex-ed or paying for abortions, I'll pay for the wasted sex-ed.

I repeat, I do NOT want to pay for somebodys abortion. And I don't understand how it can be expected that I or anybody else should have to. And I don't give a damn if it's paid from my wallet up front or if it's coming from a government backdoor subsidy that was partially paid for out of my wallet.

If people want to help pay for that, fine. Then the IRS can add a check box for donations on their forms, just like they have a check box for other donations. That way, they have the choice to do so, and I have the choice to not do so.

O-Trap

I Wear Pants;696833 wrote:What's perpetuating the cycle is pretending that people are going to listen to anyone who tells them not to have sex unless they want a child. That's not reality.

No it's not, but the reality SHOULD be that IF someone chooses to ignore this fact, after it has been expressed to them, then it is their own responsibility to take care of the consequences. Seeing people who have made this choice being, in essence, "taken care of" by social programs teaches the child, as they grow up, that they can do the same as their mother or father, and some social program will take care of them as well.

This happens all around me, and while I sympathize for the struggle, it is their burden to bear unless a kind soul offers to help. Moreover, it irks the sacred shit out of me that many of them take the assistance money and spend it on non-essentials (60" televisions or luxury transportation).

I Wear Pants;696833 wrote:All we can do is try to best make sure that people/teens are knowledgable of how to have safe sex (yes, yes we know their effectiveness is only in the high 90 something percent not 100%) and best advise them so that they're likely to use these methods.

I still support strongly emphasizing in sex-ed that there is no possible way that you can 100% eliminate the possibility of pregnancy or STD if you engage in sex. No kind (or even stacking) of birth control, no time in her cycle, no position ... the odds can always be beat, no matter what you try. Hell, even if you think you've pulled out, you can still have pregamed a little before pulling out.

believer;696931 wrote:YOU can use your money to point out common-sense to those who choose to ignore it. Just don't expect me to spend my money on it.

To be fair, I think you're assuming a lot of what makes sense to you is "common." I have heard teens say things like:

- "If it's during her period, a girl can't get pregnant."
- "If a girl is on top, she can't get pregnant."
- "If you pull out, you can't get pregnant."
- "If you use a condom, you can't get pregnant." (I've heard this one a dozen different times or so.)

In all four of those examples, the possibility still exists. However, unless someone has had the opportunity to learn it, they can't know it. I didn't know a stove would burn my hand until I learned it, either through education (someone told me), observation (I saw it happen), or experience ("F***ING SON OF A BITCH!!!"). It might seem like common sense, but unless I've learned it, there's no legitimate grounds for expecting me to know it.

I Wear Pants

CenterBHSFan;696951 wrote:1. So the consensus is that teenagers just aren't going to "listen" and do what they want anyway, so let's just throw more money at it?

2. If I had to choose to keep throwing my money at sex-ed or paying for abortions, I'll pay for the wasted sex-ed.

I repeat, I do NOT want to pay for somebodys abortion. And I don't understand how it can be expected that I or anybody else should have to. And I don't give a damn if it's paid from my wallet up front or if it's coming from a government backdoor subsidy that was partially paid for out of my wallet.

If people want to help pay for that, fine. Then the IRS can add a check box for donations on their forms, just like they have a check box for other donations. That way, they have the choice to do so, and I have the choice to not do so.

Center you keep saying that sex ed is wasted and doesn't work even though you've never shown anything that says the same. I have shown many studies and examples of how and why better sex ed results in fewer unwanted pregnancies and stds.

I didn't say teenagers don't listen to anything. But I did say they won't listen to "don't have sex" because that really isn't reasonable. Especially not for someone raging with hormones.

O-Trap. Obviously absitnence needs to be mentioned in sex ed classes becasue it is the only way to be certain you won't get pregnant or an STD but I do not think it should be the focal point. A teacher harping on about how sex is bad will not get across to kids.

Archive

House votes to stop funding to planned parenthood