On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:59:47 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

See my response earlier. Oh hell, I'll post it again. This is what is taught in Fairfax County.

Family Life Education
Program Overview

===

I'm OK with that as far as it goes but the emphasis on abstinence,
especially for older kids, is probably wishful thinking. Many of them
are already, or soon will be, in "committed" relationships and need
good solid birth control and disease prevention information more than
anything else. It's largely a waste of time to preach abstinence to a
bunch of raging hormones and it can cast the credibility of the whole
program into doubt.

On 2/7/2014 8:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:59:47 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

See my response earlier. Oh hell, I'll post it again. This is what is taught in Fairfax County.

Family Life Education
Program Overview

===

I'm OK with that as far as it goes but the emphasis on abstinence,
especially for older kids, is probably wishful thinking. Many of them
are already, or soon will be, in "committed" relationships and need
good solid birth control and disease prevention information more than
anything else. It's largely a waste of time to preach abstinence to a
bunch of raging hormones and it can cast the credibility of the whole
program into doubt.



I agree with all that.

There was a time however when that type of education came primarily from
your parents, supplemented by "health" and/or science classes in schools
that covered all the clinical details but none of the emotional issues.
Combined, they were effective.

I guess we have to question what kind of teenage activities are
considered "normal" today. If having sex with every girlfriend that
comes along is now "normal" and, in the event of an inadvertent
pregnancy, there's always the abortion clinc down the street, then I
guess I really am a luddite.

My old man spent time with me as a young, hormone filled teenager who
was starting to date frequently. He talked about the need for taking
precautions ... basically rubbers at that time. Few teenage girls were
"on the pill" back then. He talked about responsibility which extended
to that which I had for the girls involved and how important the
ramifications of our actions could be.
Most of all however, he emphasized having respect for women in general
and particularly the young women I was seeing. Without having to be
told it was clearly understood that if I treated girls badly or
irresponsibly, I'd also be answering to him. It wasn't a threat in
anyway. It was perfectly normal coming from him.

He never preached abstinence. He was too smart to do that. He just
tried to instill a more mature picture of how I should be considering
the actions and responsibilities of whatever activities I engaged in
with the fairer sex. I still have a lot of respect for his approach.

He ended it with, "When the right one comes along, you'll know it."

He was correct.

On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:59:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/7/2014 8:21 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:59:47 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

See my response earlier. Oh hell, I'll post it again. This is what is taught in Fairfax County.

Family Life Education
Program Overview

===

I'm OK with that as far as it goes but the emphasis on abstinence,
especially for older kids, is probably wishful thinking. Many of them
are already, or soon will be, in "committed" relationships and need
good solid birth control and disease prevention information more than
anything else. It's largely a waste of time to preach abstinence to a
bunch of raging hormones and it can cast the credibility of the whole
program into doubt.



I agree with all that.

There was a time however when that type of education came primarily from
your parents, supplemented by "health" and/or science classes in schools
that covered all the clinical details but none of the emotional issues.
Combined, they were effective.

I guess we have to question what kind of teenage activities are
considered "normal" today. If having sex with every girlfriend that
comes along is now "normal" and, in the event of an inadvertent
pregnancy, there's always the abortion clinc down the street, then I
guess I really am a luddite.

My old man spent time with me as a young, hormone filled teenager who
was starting to date frequently. He talked about the need for taking
precautions ... basically rubbers at that time. Few teenage girls were
"on the pill" back then. He talked about responsibility which extended
to that which I had for the girls involved and how important the
ramifications of our actions could be.
Most of all however, he emphasized having respect for women in general
and particularly the young women I was seeing. Without having to be
told it was clearly understood that if I treated girls badly or
irresponsibly, I'd also be answering to him. It wasn't a threat in
anyway. It was perfectly normal coming from him.

He never preached abstinence. He was too smart to do that. He just
tried to instill a more mature picture of how I should be considering
the actions and responsibilities of whatever activities I engaged in
with the fairer sex. I still have a lot of respect for his approach.

He ended it with, "When the right one comes along, you'll know it."

He was correct.



A story. The boy and girl in question were 13 years old.

I intercepted a note being passed from a girl to her boyfriend. In the note, the girl complained to
the boy that he could at least say he loved her since she was giving him head. Both of these kids
were from what I would consider middle to upper middle class, white, nice-looking, high on the peer
social ladder, and you get the picture.

I gave the note to the principal, expecting her to discuss it with the parents, or give it to a
counselor for the same reason. No, the principal called a meeting with the parents...and me! During
the meeting the parents expressed no surprise, outrage, worry, or any other emotion you'd think
they'd express. At the end, they left angry...not with their daughter, but with me. Why? Because by
taking and reading the note, I was infringing on the privacy of their daughter! They couldn't, or
wouldn't, understand that I was worried about the 'safety' of their daughter. At one point the
mother tried to say that 'giving head' may have been academic help. The father hushed her, saying
they'd discuss it later.

That happened about 15 years ago.

Yes, what is 'normal' today is much different than what was 'normal' in our day.

On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:21:00 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:59:47 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

See my response earlier. Oh hell, I'll post it again. This is what is taught in Fairfax County.

Family Life Education
Program Overview

===

I'm OK with that as far as it goes but the emphasis on abstinence,
especially for older kids, is probably wishful thinking. Many of them
are already, or soon will be, in "committed" relationships and need
good solid birth control and disease prevention information more than
anything else. It's largely a waste of time to preach abstinence to a
bunch of raging hormones and it can cast the credibility of the whole
program into doubt.

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. There is a lot more emphasis on
STD's and substance abuse. By the junior and senior years the 'sex education' is pretty much over,
except for some more on STD's.

Yes, there could probably be lots of improvements. But for the most part those take classroom time.
We wouldn't want to take away any of the liberal arts classes. In any case, there *is* education
taking place, contrary to what some would believe.

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.

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, 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 10:43:47 -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 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 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.