Why we need sex ed

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
This is what can happen when you have too many conservatives, and too little sex ed:

One in three couples in Philippines don't know birds from the bees: official

MANILA (AFP) - As many as 30 percent of couples in the Philippines are unaware that having sex can result in babies, Health Secretary Manuel Dayrit said.


"They do not know how pregnancy happens," even though some of them have had numerous children already, Dayrit remarked.


The discovery was the result of field studies by health workers who went door-to-door to determine population control program awareness, Dayrit said in remarks released here.


He did not say how many couples in the mainly Roman Catholic nation were surveyed.


The field workers found that in many of these cases, the couples believed the children were simply gifts from God.


"Often times people do things even if they dont understand why they do it," Dayrit said, attributing the ignorance over sex to the conservatism of Philippine society.


"A lot of it is cultural because people dont talk about sex," he said, remarking that "knowledge is often tempered by values. And if the values are such that they will reject knowledge theres nothing you can do," he added.


The government is promoting a door-to-door campaign for population control in this country of 84 million people but the Catholic church, which counts about 80 percent of the population as followers, has been actively opposing the campaign.
Click to expand...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050301/od_afp/philippinespopulation_050301172903
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Wow, too bad it's not our country and your argument doesn't matter.[/quote]

Too bad I have to agree.

When my mom was growing up she was lead to belive that kissing made babies.

Here's sex ed now...

Stick + Hole = Gross = Babies
 
I can kind of see where he's coming from though. I mean when you've got movements toward sex ed classes not teaching anything except abstinence, you are going to have a problem.
 
My point wasn't that this would happen (due to where our society is on the issue), but that not teaching sex ed creates nothing more than an uninformed population.
 
Look at it this way, where do you think all those 10-12 year old virgins come from that Fillipinos sell to foreigners on sex trips?

Supply and demand baby!

Yes, I'm completely joking.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']My point wasn't that this would happen (due to where our society is on the issue), but that not teaching sex ed creates nothing more than an uninformed population.[/quote]

Yeah right, next you're going to tell me that the christian god didn't create the world in 7 days and that the story of genesis was just a metaphorical gnostic myth
 
I really don't see why this is the fault of the conservatives. I have nothing against the abstinence movement either, so long that it is done honestly.
 
[quote name='Pylis']I really don't see why this is the fault of the conservatives. I have nothing against the abstinence movement either, so long that it is done honestly.[/quote]

The country is dominated by religious/sexual conservatives, I wasn't referring to everyone who fits into the conservative category.
 
I know that, I'm just saying that your initial statement blaming conservatives was a wide generalization.
 
Only abstinence is a christain joke, but both abstinence and safe sex are better.

But hey if they have babies there is always the abortion methid of birth control. :D
 
There's also the big lie that condoms will protect you from pregnancy and STD's. Their failure rate can be from 5% or more.

If I knew someone had HIV or any STD there is no way I'm trusting a condom to protect me.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']There's also the big lie that condoms will protect you from pregnancy and STD's. Their failure rate can be from 5% or more.

If I knew someone had HIV or any STD there is no way I'm trusting a condom to protect me.[/quote]

big lie?? yeah a 95% success rate is a huge lie. The fact is they DO protect you from pregnancy and STD; maybe not 100% but they do work much better than nothing...wow what a lie. How asinine. Your above post illustrates the need for accurate sex ed perfectly.

The biggest reason for failure is not using the condom correctly. And abstinence only doesn't teach you correct usage. Furthermore, I have never had or come across any sex-ed teacher who claims condoms are 100% effective.

no PAD, it is a big "pretend" lie that no one but people like you repeat.

Here..educate yourself.. http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4_2.shtml
 
Condoms have a failure rate somewhere in the 10-15 percent range when used incorrectly, under 2% percent when used correctly. That being said, 50% failure is better than 100%, which is the rate you'd have with every sexual partner. Without them you have no protection against disease and, considering the lack of 20+ virgins, that's a huge risk.

I don't see many people telling others not to use drugs that are 85%, 60%, 30% etc. effective, anything is better than uprotected.
 
Yeah, but the gay activists and dishonest family planners all over the Earth claim condoms are the miracle of man that allow you to have "protected" sex without consequence.

Any time someone, like me, points out condoms aren't the perfect answer to problems and diseases that arise from sex and suggest abstinence, monogomy or marriage short bus riders like usickenme think we're being unreasonable and say we have our heads in the sand.

Hey usickenme, I present you with the best looking woman or man you've ever seen but tell you they are HIV positive. Are you going to sleep with them based on the safety record or failure rates of condoms?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yeah, but the gay activists and dishonest family planners all over the Earth claim condoms are the miracle of man that allow you to have "protected" sex without consequence.

Any time someone, like me, points out condoms aren't the perfect answer to problems and diseases that arise from sex and suggest abstinence, monogomy or marriage short bus riders like usickenme think we're being unreasonable and say we have our heads in the sand.

Hey usickenme, I present you with the best looking woman or man you've ever seen but tell you they are HIV positive. Are you going to sleep with them based on the safety record or failure rates of condoms?[/quote]

You didn't say they weren't 100% effective, you argued that it was a lie to say they could protect you from hiv, std's and pregnancy.

There's also the big lie that condoms will protect you from pregnancy and STD's.
Click to expand...

And you are unreasonable if you believe everyone will be abstinant until marriage. Your plan provides no alternative to the majority of people who will not remain abstinent.
 
What plan? When did I EVER say it was plan?

The whole argument is they aren't 100% effective. Everyone knows this. The failure rate can range from 2-15% depending on the end user. Do you think in third world countries people are using condoms 100% of the time? Hell, they don't in this country.

Would you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger if the percentage that you would be shot was 2-15%? No.

I also never said people would abstain until marriage. However I did mention the word, monogomy. Which of course, you chose to overlook. Get tested, stay together, don't sleep around if you want to have sex.

However in the gay community here AIDS is again on the rise due to crystal meth and the resurgence of unprotected sex and annonymous sex in bathouses and the practice of gloryholing. So right there one of the most vocal proponents of condom usage are ignoring decades of education and going back to the bad old days that led to the widespread infection rates amongst gays.

You want to prevent disease and pregnancy? Absinence. It works 100% of the time its tried. Everything else is sticking your finger in the dyke and hoping it doesn't leak.

I don't know what's so hard about this to grasp. I'm not preaching religion, I'm not ignoring reality but you're ignoring the reality that condoms are not a silver bullet cure for all of sex's ills. Abstinence is.

It's not okay to tell kids or young adults in any country that if they use condoms they're protected. They aren't. Then again the whole point of this thread was people in the Phillipines didn't necessarily know how babies were made. Now of course we need to teach people that, but we don't need to tell them than can screw without consequence which condom advocates more or less claim.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']However in the gay community here AIDS is again on the rise due to crystal meth and the resurgence of unprotected sex and annonymous sex in bathouses and the practice of gloryholing. So right there one of the most vocal proponents of condom usage are ignoring decades of education and going back to the bad old days that led to the widespread infection rates amongst gays.[/quote]

That's true, but denying gays the right to marry and shutting them out or moral and government institutions just encourages this behavior. Republicans need to decide - do they want gays to be productive, moral members of society, or are they just looking for a whipping boy that they can use to get easy votes in the bigoted south and mid-west.

Back to the subject, in my school they taught condoms and then mentioned the 100% cure - abstinence. Simple and effective advertising, that doesn't fail to give a 95% effective barrier to those who will go out and roll the dice anyway.
 
That's what they should be teaching camoor. Both options. People have the wherewithal to decide for themselves what an acceptable risk is. If they know the consequences it's for them to decide.

However some militant condom advocates don't want abstinence taught as an alternative and that's just criminally negligent.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What plan? When did I EVER say it was plan?

The whole argument is they aren't 100% effective. Everyone knows this. The failure rate can range from 2-15% depending on the end user. Do you think in third world countries people are using condoms 100% of the time? Hell, they don't in this country.

Would you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger if the percentage that you would be shot was 2-15%? No.

I also never said people would abstain until marriage. However I did mention the word, monogomy. Which of course, you chose to overlook. Get tested, stay together, don't sleep around if you want to have sex.

However in the gay community here AIDS is again on the rise due to crystal meth and the resurgence of unprotected sex and annonymous sex in bathouses and the practice of gloryholing. So right there one of the most vocal proponents of condom usage are ignoring decades of education and going back to the bad old days that led to the widespread infection rates amongst gays.

You want to prevent disease and pregnancy? Absinence. It works 100% of the time its tried. Everything else is sticking your finger in the dyke and hoping it doesn't leak.

I don't know what's so hard about this to grasp. I'm not preaching religion, I'm not ignoring reality but you're ignoring the reality that condoms are not a silver bullet cure for all of sex's ills. Abstinence is.

It's not okay to tell kids or young adults in any country that if they use condoms they're protected. They aren't. Then again the whole point of this thread was people in the Phillipines didn't necessarily know how babies were made. Now of course we need to teach people that, but we don't need to tell them than can screw without consequence which condom advocates more or less claim.[/quote]

Monogomous doesn't mean you only have one partner, you break up move on and so on.

Though this was confusing, is abstinence your solution or isn't it? You're going back and forth.

You say abstinence should be taught, but not that everyone will follow it, doesn't sound very effective.

It's not okay to tell kids or young adults in any country that if they use condoms they're protected. They aren't.
Click to expand...

](*,) You either need to make up your mind or learn english. 98% protection is protection, hell 10% protection is protection. When I get vaccines I have to sign a paper saying I know it may not be 100% effective, doesn't me I don't want it. Kids are gonna have sex, better to advise abstinence and hand them a condom as a safety net, instead of saying abstain and hope the kid won't be another statistic.

And as for a silver bullet cure, no ones arguing they're a cure, but used properly they almost always prevent the spread of HIV, also they're a good way to limit abortions, more condoms means less unwanted pregnancies= less babies killed.

Also, until you make up your mind whether condoms just aren't effective 100% of the time, or whether they don't provide protection, you are ignoring reality.
 
The problem is that teens will never stay abstinent. I know I won't. The thing is, we need to at least show people that wearing a condom does save lives. It's not perfect, but kids will not be abstinent. Some will, the majority will not.
 
Are you so fucking stupid and dense that you can't understand that I've said that both need to be taught?

I mean seriously, do you have no abilities at reading comprehension?

I've made up my mind, I've stated my opinion. Learn to fucking read.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Are you so shaq-fuing stupid and dense that you can't understand that I've said that both need to be taught?

I mean seriously, do you have no abilities at reading comprehension?

I've made up my mind, I've stated my opinion. Learn to shaq-fuing read.[/quote]

Look at the time of my post, you said you supported both 1 minute before I made my post. There is no way in hell I could have seen that before typing.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']That's what they should be teaching camoor. Both options. People have the wherewithal to decide for themselves what an acceptable risk is. If they know the consequences it's for them to decide.

However some militant condom advocates don't want abstinence taught as an alternative and that's just criminally negligent.[/quote]

There are plenty of militants to go around. The position that scares me the most is the one that abstinence only should be taught. And it seems like this position is spreading...

LINKY
 
Then I apologize.

The militants on both side are wrong camoor. Like I said, make both pieces of information available and people have the free will to decide.

They can decide if 100% succes with abstinence is worth not having sex. They can also decide if they want to run a 2-15% failure rate and run the risk of unintended pregnancy or disease.

This is the biggest problem I have with militant condom advocates that don't want abstinence taught. It's the same as playing Russian roulette but telling people that the gun will never be loaded, when it could be. Like I said, if you knew a person had HIV or herpes, both incurable, the overwhelming majority of sane, rational people would not trust a condom to protect them. Why? They know there are failure rates and wouldn't want to live with the consequences.

However militant condom advocates never really talk about that. Yet if faced with the same dilema they would never trust their health to a condom. Then, in their public forums they act contrarian to what their personal behavior would be.

Yes, people are going to screw. Yes, you're less likely to get pregnant or catch an STD if you use a condom. However if you knew the person you were screwing had an STD to begin with you wouldn't screw them even with a condom. At least sane people wouldn't.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Any time someone, like me, points out condoms aren't the perfect answer to problems and diseases that arise from sex and suggest abstinence, monogomy or marriage short bus riders like usickenme think we're being unreasonable and say we have our heads in the sand.[/quote]


Way to twist what you posted and what I posted. But I guess if if makes your point, anything goes. First of all the is a HUGE difference between saying "it is a lie that condoms protect you" and saying "condoms aren't perfect". I already acknowledged that condoms aren't perfect. Secondly, You weren't being unreasonable, you were simply being dishonest (or maybe you unclear as to what "protect" means.). To further that dishonesty, you play up the failure rates of condoms without mentioning the success rates relative to nothing. Also you didn't even mention monogamy or marriage until now. So you have this phantom debate, arguing nothing, changing what you say, make unproven claims and I'm the short bus rider. umm ok

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
Hey usickenme, I present you with the best looking woman or man you've ever seen but tell you they are HIV positive. Are you going to sleep with them based on the safety record or failure rates of condoms?[/quote]


Actually the failure rates for HIV are less than 1%. In fact, much less. (excluding the fact that I am married) I would have ZERO problem having sex in that situtation.

Hell it would probably be more dangerous driving to the date than doing the deed.

from the article....A multicountry European study of 256 HIV-discordant couples followed for an average of 20 months found that not one infection occurred among such couples using condoms during every sex act (134).

by the way, PaD. I also agree that both should be presented. But to me, "teaching" abstainence is kind of silly. It is only logical that not doing something is the best way to prevent the ills that might come from that behavoir. I mean, why don't we have a section in Driver's Ed entitled.."Not driving your car, they only true safe way"
 
[quote name='usickenme'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

Hey usickenme, I present you with the best looking woman or man you've ever seen but tell you they are HIV positive. Are you going to sleep with them based on the safety record or failure rates of condoms?[/quote]

Actually the failure rates for HIV are less than 1%. In fact, much less. (excluding the fact that I am married) I would have ZERO problem having sex in that situtation.

Hell it would probably be more dangerous driving to the date than doing the deed.[/quote]

I'd have a problem if I didn't know the person or just started seeing them, since I don't want to risk a breakage or using it incorrectly and getting HIV. But if I already deeply cared about them I wouldn't care, since the risk is so small.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This is the biggest problem I have with militant condom advocates that don't want abstinence taught. It's the same as playing Russian roulette but telling people that the gun will never be loaded, when it could be. Like I said, if you knew a person had HIV or herpes, both incurable, the overwhelming majority of sane, rational people would not trust a condom to protect them. Why? They know there are failure rates and wouldn't want to live with the consequences.

However militant condom advocates never really talk about that. Yet if faced with the same dilema they would never trust their health to a condom. Then, in their public forums they act contrarian to what their personal behavior would be.[/quote]

That's true.

I think Americans are screwed up about sex in general. Sexual repression leads to all sorts of weird fetishes, the Victorian Era being the poster child era. However America today is just as screwed up - just look at the freakish desire for porn and unusual mixes of sex and violence in shows like CSI if you don't believe me.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yeah, but the gay activists and dishonest family planners all over the Earth claim condoms are the miracle of man that allow you to have "protected" sex without consequence.

Any time someone, like me, points out condoms aren't the perfect answer to problems and diseases that arise from sex and suggest abstinence, monogomy or marriage short bus riders like usickenme think we're being unreasonable and say we have our heads in the sand.

Hey usickenme, I present you with the best looking woman or man you've ever seen but tell you they are HIV positive. Are you going to sleep with them based on the safety record or failure rates of condoms?[/quote]

You are a fucking dumbass. You can't be right so let's bash gays and people who don't believe your old fasion closedminded view! That's a way to win an agruement! :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top