On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:22:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:02:34 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

We must be coming at it from different angles. I saw the abstinence being taught as the only
'foolproof' method of preventing pregnancies and STD's, which it is.

===

To me that's like saying that the only foolproof way of avoiding
automobile accidents is to not get in a car.

I agree. But if a kid thinks that rubbers, pills, IUDs, etc are the 'safe surefire way' to prevent
STDs and/or pregnancies, then this might be a worthwhile bit of information.

On 2/8/14, 7:47 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:56:36 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/7/2014 3:41 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:28:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That's not the problem. The problem is with much more dangerous and
addictive opiates.

The most pervasive opiates these days come from doctors and drug
companies



They say you can get addicted by doing one oxy... I have seen it, it's a
fact...

That could be, if the person gets a little buzz, likes it, and keeps taking it. I've had both the
oxy's contin and codone recently. If actually taken for the pain, there isn't a 'high' that goes
along with it, just a reduction in pain. I think if a person is feeling a 'high', then either they
don't need the pain killer, or they're taking more than necessary.


It appears as if you are trying to extrapolate universal truths from
your limited, individual experiences with painkillers. Perhaps *you*
didn't feel a "high," or perhaps your "high" was masked by pain, or
perhaps not. But for you to state that if a person is feeling a "high"
from taking a pain killer, then they don't need the painkiller or that
they are taking more than necessary, has little if any basis in science.

On 2/8/14, 10:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:22:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:02:34 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

We must be coming at it from different angles. I saw the abstinence being taught as the only
'foolproof' method of preventing pregnancies and STD's, which it is.

===

To me that's like saying that the only foolproof way of avoiding
automobile accidents is to not get in a car.

I agree. But if a kid thinks that rubbers, pills, IUDs, etc are the 'safe surefire way' to prevent
STDs and/or pregnancies, then this might be a worthwhile bit of information.



Condoms are an effective way to prevent the transmission of venereal
diseases. The other methods you listed are not. Basing sex education
classes on the "wonderfulness" of abstinence tells the students you are
not taking the teaching of sex education seriously. Teaching students
that they need to use a condom every time to prevent the transmission of
disease and to prevent pregnancy while engaging in sex *is* taking the
teaching of sex education seriously. No, the condoms are not 100%
effective, but if used properly, they are damned close to it.

Teenagers are going to engage in sexual activity. There's no question
about that. The "science" on that is settled. What responsible adults
need to do is make sure that the teens know to use a condom.

Back when I was 16, one of my after school jobs was working at a small
pharmacy in a pretty rough neighborhood. I was the combination soda
jerk, delivery boy, and salesman of booze and condoms. The latter two
activities were illegal for a kid my age, of course, but the
pharmacist/owner said no one from the alcohol board had ever been in his
store. Condoms were a grey area back then in Connecticut. They were kept
behind the counter and when someone came in to buy some, I had to go
fetch them. Some of the buyers were high school kids. That made the
pharmacist smile because, he said, there would be fewer teen pregnancies
in the neighborhood if the boys were "wearing a raincoat."

I understand that many Americans have sexual hangups. I managed to grow
up without them.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:23:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:22:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:02:34 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

We must be coming at it from different angles. I saw the abstinence being taught as the only
'foolproof' method of preventing pregnancies and STD's, which it is.

===

To me that's like saying that the only foolproof way of avoiding
automobile accidents is to not get in a car.

I agree. But if a kid thinks that rubbers, pills, IUDs, etc are the 'safe surefire way' to prevent
STDs and/or pregnancies, then this might be a worthwhile bit of information.

===

I think most kids are well aware already. Preaching abstinence is
mostly to make the parents feel good. The kids are under tremendous
biological and social pressure and already know waaay more than we
think they should.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:43:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 10:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:22:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:02:34 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

We must be coming at it from different angles. I saw the abstinence being taught as the only
'foolproof' method of preventing pregnancies and STD's, which it is.

===

To me that's like saying that the only foolproof way of avoiding
automobile accidents is to not get in a car.

I agree. But if a kid thinks that rubbers, pills, IUDs, etc are the 'safe surefire way' to prevent
STDs and/or pregnancies, then this might be a worthwhile bit of information.



Condoms are an effective way to prevent the transmission of venereal
diseases. The other methods you listed are not. Basing sex education
classes on the "wonderfulness" of abstinence tells the students you are
not taking the teaching of sex education seriously. Teaching students
that they need to use a condom every time to prevent the transmission of
disease and to prevent pregnancy while engaging in sex *is* taking the
teaching of sex education seriously. No, the condoms are not 100%
effective, but if used properly, they are damned close to it.

Teenagers are going to engage in sexual activity. There's no question
about that. The "science" on that is settled. What responsible adults
need to do is make sure that the teens know to use a condom.



Back when I was 16, one of my after school jobs was working at a small
pharmacy in a pretty rough neighborhood. I was the combination soda
jerk, delivery boy, and salesman of booze and condoms. The latter two
activities were illegal for a kid my age, of course, but the
pharmacist/owner said no one from the alcohol board had ever been in his
store. Condoms were a grey area back then in Connecticut. They were kept
behind the counter and when someone came in to buy some, I had to go
fetch them. Some of the buyers were high school kids. That made the
pharmacist smile because, he said, there would be fewer teen pregnancies
in the neighborhood if the boys were "wearing a raincoat."

I understand that many Americans have sexual hangups. I managed to grow
up without them.



Where did anyone say anything about *basing* sex education on 'abstinence', Harry?

When you were 16, as now, you were perfect.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:27:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 7:47 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:56:36 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/7/2014 3:41 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:28:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That's not the problem. The problem is with much more dangerous and
addictive opiates.

The most pervasive opiates these days come from doctors and drug
companies



They say you can get addicted by doing one oxy... I have seen it, it's a
fact...

That could be, if the person gets a little buzz, likes it, and keeps taking it. I've had both the
oxy's contin and codone recently. If actually taken for the pain, there isn't a 'high' that goes
along with it, just a reduction in pain. I think if a person is feeling a 'high', then either they
don't need the pain killer, or they're taking more than necessary.


It appears as if you are trying to extrapolate universal truths from
your limited, individual experiences with painkillers. Perhaps *you*
didn't feel a "high," or perhaps your "high" was masked by pain, or
perhaps not. But for you to state that if a person is feeling a "high"
from taking a pain killer, then they don't need the painkiller or that
they are taking more than necessary, has little if any basis in science.


Harry, perhaps you could read my paragraph. I think you'll find the words 'I' and 'I think' there. I
gave my opinion, and I didn't state what you said I stated.

On 2/8/14, 10:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:27:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 7:47 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:56:36 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/7/2014 3:41 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:28:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That's not the problem. The problem is with much more dangerous and
addictive opiates.

The most pervasive opiates these days come from doctors and drug
companies



They say you can get addicted by doing one oxy... I have seen it, it's a
fact...

That could be, if the person gets a little buzz, likes it, and keeps taking it. I've had both the
oxy's contin and codone recently. If actually taken for the pain, there isn't a 'high' that goes
along with it, just a reduction in pain. I think if a person is feeling a 'high', then either they
don't need the pain killer, or they're taking more than necessary.


It appears as if you are trying to extrapolate universal truths from
your limited, individual experiences with painkillers. Perhaps *you*
didn't feel a "high," or perhaps your "high" was masked by pain, or
perhaps not. But for you to state that if a person is feeling a "high"
from taking a pain killer, then they don't need the painkiller or that
they are taking more than necessary, has little if any basis in science.


Harry, perhaps you could read my paragraph. I think you'll find the words 'I' and 'I think' there. I
gave my opinion, and I didn't state what you said I stated.



You stated exactly what I quoted.

On 2/8/14, 10:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:43:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 10:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:22:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:02:34 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

We must be coming at it from different angles. I saw the abstinence being taught as the only
'foolproof' method of preventing pregnancies and STD's, which it is.

===

To me that's like saying that the only foolproof way of avoiding
automobile accidents is to not get in a car.

I agree. But if a kid thinks that rubbers, pills, IUDs, etc are the 'safe surefire way' to prevent
STDs and/or pregnancies, then this might be a worthwhile bit of information.



Condoms are an effective way to prevent the transmission of venereal
diseases. The other methods you listed are not. Basing sex education
classes on the "wonderfulness" of abstinence tells the students you are
not taking the teaching of sex education seriously. Teaching students
that they need to use a condom every time to prevent the transmission of
disease and to prevent pregnancy while engaging in sex *is* taking the
teaching of sex education seriously. No, the condoms are not 100%
effective, but if used properly, they are damned close to it.

Teenagers are going to engage in sexual activity. There's no question
about that. The "science" on that is settled. What responsible adults
need to do is make sure that the teens know to use a condom.



Back when I was 16, one of my after school jobs was working at a small
pharmacy in a pretty rough neighborhood. I was the combination soda
jerk, delivery boy, and salesman of booze and condoms. The latter two
activities were illegal for a kid my age, of course, but the
pharmacist/owner said no one from the alcohol board had ever been in his
store. Condoms were a grey area back then in Connecticut. They were kept
behind the counter and when someone came in to buy some, I had to go
fetch them. Some of the buyers were high school kids. That made the
pharmacist smile because, he said, there would be fewer teen pregnancies
in the neighborhood if the boys were "wearing a raincoat."

I understand that many Americans have sexual hangups. I managed to grow
up without them.



Where did anyone say anything about *basing* sex education on 'abstinence', Harry?

When you were 16, as now, you were perfect.


Hardy, but no one taught or told me that "sex is dirty."

On 2/8/2014 10:43 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
I understand that many Americans have sexual hangups. I managed to grow
up without them.

An amoral ass such as yourself isn't likely to have hangups about anything.

On 2/8/2014 10:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:43:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 10:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:22:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:02:34 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

We must be coming at it from different angles. I saw the abstinence being taught as the only
'foolproof' method of preventing pregnancies and STD's, which it is.

===

To me that's like saying that the only foolproof way of avoiding
automobile accidents is to not get in a car.

I agree. But if a kid thinks that rubbers, pills, IUDs, etc are the 'safe surefire way' to prevent
STDs and/or pregnancies, then this might be a worthwhile bit of information.



Condoms are an effective way to prevent the transmission of venereal
diseases. The other methods you listed are not. Basing sex education
classes on the "wonderfulness" of abstinence tells the students you are
not taking the teaching of sex education seriously. Teaching students
that they need to use a condom every time to prevent the transmission of
disease and to prevent pregnancy while engaging in sex *is* taking the
teaching of sex education seriously. No, the condoms are not 100%
effective, but if used properly, they are damned close to it.

Teenagers are going to engage in sexual activity. There's no question
about that. The "science" on that is settled. What responsible adults
need to do is make sure that the teens know to use a condom.



Back when I was 16, one of my after school jobs was working at a small
pharmacy in a pretty rough neighborhood. I was the combination soda
jerk, delivery boy, and salesman of booze and condoms. The latter two
activities were illegal for a kid my age, of course, but the
pharmacist/owner said no one from the alcohol board had ever been in his
store. Condoms were a grey area back then in Connecticut. They were kept
behind the counter and when someone came in to buy some, I had to go
fetch them. Some of the buyers were high school kids. That made the
pharmacist smile because, he said, there would be fewer teen pregnancies
in the neighborhood if the boys were "wearing a raincoat."

I understand that many Americans have sexual hangups. I managed to grow
up without them.



Where did anyone say anything about *basing* sex education on 'abstinence', Harry?

When you were 16, as now, you were perfect.


What's amazing is that he managed to grow up at all.