If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Sex educator uses a cinderblock dangling over a student's genitals to demonstrate condom failure... submitter would like to abstain from that demo   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 288
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

19610 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2007 at 7:40 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-19 12:12:28 AM
So HIV comes from blunt force trauma now? I guess Ill have to put the weener in plate armor now.
 
2007-03-19 12:18:28 AM
sounds like pledging to me.

would you drop this brick on your balls for the brothers of Kapp Alpha Phi?

Sir, yes sir!
 
2007-03-19 12:22:02 AM
**Cinder block slips**

Well, no worries for this one. Would someone walk Jimmy to the nurse?
 
2007-03-19 12:24:51 AM
"Que Sera, Sera". What will be will be. The future's not ours to..."

/Maybe some guys need to be kicked or dropped on for the wake-up??!
//Sounds too hard. Find someone, stick with him/her, she'll, he'll fill the gaps.
 
2007-03-19 12:29:43 AM
just have a chick in the class that is designated to have drugs, have the boys pick a chick to pick up and have sex with, and if they pick her, they get kicked in the groin.


Everyone will hate that biatch for a while, though.
 
2007-03-19 12:32:06 AM
If there was a chick jumping on your junk, the block will just hit her in the head instead of smashing your balls. Abstinence that.
 
2007-03-19 12:38:25 AM
Pope Joan Would someone walk what's left of Jimmy to the nurse?

Heheheh...teh funnay.
 
2007-03-19 12:39:07 AM
Step 1: Associate condoms with painful blunt trauma
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Teenage pregnancy
 
2007-03-19 12:40:10 AM
IAmRight

While your description was slightly incomprehensible at times...your plan of attack sounds much more effective than that of the educator in the article.
 
2007-03-19 12:46:47 AM
I can't believe this stupid railing against condom use still continues from Christians. When their abstinence-only education fails (as it does in a large percentage of teen students) the only thing they've effectively accomplished is to teach kids not to use condoms, so they end up screwing bareback.

Why do Christian educators refuse to admit this?
 
2007-03-19 01:04:44 AM
Epsilon: I can't believe this stupid railing against condom use still continues from Christians.

Hey, don't knock it,it feels better and you can always run away if bad things happen.
 
2007-03-19 01:07:40 AM
Epsilon:
Why do Christian educators refuse to admit this?

Because they are religious and believe in dogma. If they accepted dogma is not a good way to teach people, their whole world would come crashing down.
 
2007-03-19 02:33:03 AM
Chariset: Step 3:

Brilliant. My hat is off to you! :-D
 
2007-03-19 02:33:59 AM
Epsilon: Why do Christian educators refuse to admit this?

Because Christians *are* *stupid* *morons*. I know, I grew up as one, but I got better.

Disclaimer: Not all Christians are. In fact, it's mostly just the fundies... I know. I grew up as a fundie. :-/
 
2007-03-19 02:51:55 AM
Epsilon: Why do Christian educators refuse to admit this?

If you deeply believe that you are right and the scientific information is wrong, then you aren't lying.
 
2007-03-19 07:47:41 AM
christian sex educator/comedian/cinderblock on gonads = WTF were they thinking.. Damn christians.. when did they become funny?
 
2007-03-19 07:49:38 AM
Face it kids fark at a earlier age now
I have a 6 y/o daughter and she will be kept in a cage till 23like this
i17.tinypic.com
 
2007-03-19 07:50:21 AM
farm1.static.flickr.com

Just say no to junk bustin.
 
2007-03-19 07:52:09 AM
Wow, that's hardcore. I only use paving stones in my demos.
 
2007-03-19 08:04:26 AM
You're my boy Blue!!!
 
2007-03-19 08:04:55 AM
Teaching "abstinence only" is as effective as stopping a charging rhinocerous with a toothpick.
 
2007-03-19 08:11:38 AM
What if we want our kids to have sex and enjoy life?
And we want them to have the knowlege to do it safely?

That's up to us, not you, to determine what's 'shameful' and 'appropriate' for ourselves.
 
2007-03-19 08:12:37 AM
"the presentation falls far short of helping young people develop the skills and knowledge they need to become sexually healthy adults."

I really don't think raising sexually healthy adults was on this speaker's agenda at all.
 
2007-03-19 08:12:59 AM
Is ther another form of contraception as effective as keeping your pants fastened firmly around your waist?

Of course not.

The failure of a person to follow a proscribed course of action is not a failure of the effectiveness of the course of action; it is a failure of the individual. If I need to take a regimen of drugs to keep my body from rejecting a transplanted organ, and I do not, my body's subsequent rejection of the transplanted organ is not a failure of the drugs to do their job.

/not a fundie/
 
2007-03-19 08:15:25 AM
HAMMERTOE

The failure of a person to follow a proscribed course of action is not a failure of the effectiveness of the course of action; it is a failure of the individual. If I need to take a regimen of drugs to keep my body from rejecting a transplanted organ, and I do not, my body's subsequent rejection of the transplanted organ is not a failure of the drugs to do their job.

/not a fundie/


Actually, the analogy here, when having safe sex is that you take those drugs, and they fail, even as unlikely as it is.

When done right and appropriately, there's hardly any risk at all.
 
2007-03-19 08:18:38 AM
Honestly, I saw this guy speak (or somebody else who was dangling cinderblocks over male genitalia) 2 years back and he seemed like an okay guy. Definitely entertaining.

Just delusional.
 
2007-03-19 08:23:55 AM
Saying that we shouldn't be teaching sex ed because sex is bad is like saying we shouldn't take Driver's Ed because we shouldn't really be driving cars, because its too dangerous and not necesary.
 
2007-03-19 08:26:25 AM
Chariset [TotalFark]

Ok, realy, is it that hard to figure out what "Step 2" is?

/I'll leave that for the class as an exercise at home
//specifically mine
 
2007-03-19 08:30:26 AM
When done right and appropriately, there's hardly any risk at all.
This is wrong in ever sense of the word. No they are not effective and even when used right( which almost never happens) the risk is still to great. 2.5 seconds of happiness and screwing up your life or don't be a sheep to the oversexed society and live a happy life.
 
2007-03-19 08:31:30 AM
The proper underpants gnomes reference is phases not steps. Common misconception on Fark.

Of course, now we'll be having an upswing in kids having ear sex.
 
2007-03-19 08:33:58 AM
:No they are not effective and even when used right:

Wow. Someones been drinking the right wing kool aide.
 
2007-03-19 08:35:24 AM
If that ever happened to me, I would have grabbed the block, knocked my teacher over the head with it, and explained that I was demonstration how to defend against rape. Not exactly untrue.

Then, for good measure, I'd explain the proper usage of condoms and cite the fact that they are about as close to 100% effective as you can get. Furthermore, that fundies should never be listened to, ever.
 
2007-03-19 08:36:29 AM
Just give them all a good case of the clap. That'll permanently learn 'em. Then again, if they're not wrapping their willies, they'll get that lesson in due time...along with a whole bunch of other shiat that makes gonorrhea look like a minor hangover.
 
2007-03-19 08:37:43 AM
You will never, ever, ever stop kids from having sex. Period. This isn't a new thing, either. Think "Romeo and Juliet". She was locked away by her violent-minded mobster-like family to keep her away from the son of another such family, and she found a way to get out to try and have sex. The problem is, kids are stupid, as Juliet was, and preventing them rather than helping them only leads to them making big mistakes.

The "sex is bad" thing comes about because of a strange interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. Supposedly, they were innocent and good until they ate from the Apple of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They didn't get kicked out of Eden for having sex, they were likely rutting like rabbits even before eating the apple, when they were essentially hairless monkeys. They got kicked out because they A> didn't listen to God, and B> learned the concept of shame (hence, the wearing of fig leaves).

If anything, that says to me that being ashamed of your body and what it's for is the real offense against God.
 
2007-03-19 08:39:23 AM
Drasancas: When done right and appropriately, there's hardly any risk at all.

For which STDs? I'm not a big fan of abstinence only, because I think part of sex education is education about sex. It is up to the student to determine their participation. But there is a sense now that condoms stop everything. They don't, even when used correctly, even when they don't fail. They use condoms, but not oral-dams. Contact to any area that is moist and usually hairy can spread some things. Most of them are treatable at least, but the risk is there. Crabs, chlamydia (which was in the spell checker), etc.

I'm more of educate, but if you decide to play and get something (i.e. a disease, or parenthood), don't complain, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.

Sex is great, but if you look at the person and think, 'Oh my god, what if we DO have a kid!' Is is really that much better than your hand?

I have a friend that has a kid with a psycho ex. He moved away, she called said she was pregnant. They tried being married, got divorced. Nothing but trouble since. His comment, 'The sex was not that good, not even close. I would have gotten no where near that vagina if I knew I'd be in some way tied to her for the rest of my life.'
 
2007-03-19 08:41:31 AM
Drasancas: What if we want our kids to have sex and enjoy life?
And we want them to have the knowlege to do it safely?


I don't have kids . . . but if I did, you could guest-lecture in my house.
 
2007-03-19 08:41:34 AM
Thisbymaster: When done right and appropriately, there's hardly any risk at all.
This is wrong in ever sense of the word. No they are not effective and even when used right( which almost never happens) the risk is still to great.


0.1% chance of failure is "too great"? I'm sure you never drive anywhere, because of the chance you might be in an accident.


2.5 seconds of happiness and screwing up your life or don't be a sheep to the oversexed society and live a happy life.

2.5 seconds? There's your problem, you're doing it wrong.

Sex is about a helluva lot more than just orgasm.

Oh, and just because you're undersexed, that doesn't make us oversexed.
 
2007-03-19 08:42:07 AM
C1ofUnknown: Of course, now we'll be having an upswing in kids having ear sex.

NSFW
 
2007-03-19 08:42:45 AM
The only truth fundies tell is abstinence is the only 100% effective method. However, many other methods do get close to 100% (the pills and other hormonal methods are very close to 100% if used properly.)

Condoms: 84-98% effective at preventing pregnancy (that obviously includes actual use and "perfect" use). Latex and polyurethane condoms are effective at protecting STDs as well.

So if used correctly, condoms are very effective.
 
2007-03-19 08:43:31 AM
Thisbymaster

This is wrong in ever sense of the word. No they are not effective and even when used right

Citations?

Ahh, here's one:
Clicky

Not to mention the push towards doubling up on contraceptives. Let's take birth control pills + condoms. %14 failure of %1 failure is 0.0014% failure. 7 out of 5000 isn't bad.

( which almost never happens)

Which is why maximizing education helps. Reducing sex ed makes that worse, since no matter what you 'think' is appropriate towards sex, they're going to go do it anyway.

the risk is still to great. 2.5 seconds of happiness and screwing up your life or don't be a sheep to the oversexed society and live a happy life.

You
think it's too great. Good thing you can't decide that for me.

Please stop driving your car, since the risk of DEATH is too great. But I forgot, death+violence isn't as bad as sex.

Sex is part of a happy life. We're hardwired for it.
There's no reason to not attempt to get the best of both worlds, when we're already 99% of the way there.
 
2007-03-19 08:45:49 AM
C1ofUnknown: The only truth fundies tell is abstinence is the only 100% effective method. However, many other methods do get close to 100% (the pills and other hormonal methods are very close to 100% if used properly.)


The only 100% effective way to not get into a car accident is to never go outside.

The only 100% effective way to avoid having your heart broken is to never fall in love.

Utter safety is too high a price for many things.
 
2007-03-19 08:46:35 AM
"
The only truth fundies tell is abstinence is the only 100% effective method."

YEah, that worked out great for Mary, that chick theyre so fond of. Do they ever mention the fact that God-rape might be a problem?
 
2007-03-19 08:48:42 AM
Thorak: The only 100% effective way to not get into a car accident is to never go outside.

What if you're sitting inside your house, watching TV, and BAM! Out of friggin nowhere a semi with a trailer packed full of dynamite and matches crashes into your house?
 
2007-03-19 08:49:33 AM
Duelist

For which STDs? I'm not a big fan of abstinence only, because I think part of sex education is education about sex. It is up to the student to determine their participation. But there is a sense now that condoms stop everything. They don't, even when used correctly, even when they don't fail.

That'd be part of the education: correcting misinterpretations.

People keep using the consequences of insuficient or malfunctioned education as a reason why we shouldn't educate.

They use condoms, but not oral-dams. Contact to any area that is moist and usually hairy can spread some things. Most of them are treatable at least, but the risk is there. Crabs, chlamydia (which was in the spell checker), etc.

Part of that education is the awareness of such issues, and getting people into the habit of testing for such things.

Soon enough, if we're smart, we could couple that with technologies, that can be carried around as easily as condums, to test for such diseases on the fly.

I'm more of educate, but if you decide to play and get something (i.e. a disease, or parenthood), don't complain, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.

While this is true, it doesn't you shouldn't get educated for safety for your job, and just go home.

Sex is great, but if you look at the person and think, 'Oh my god, what if we DO have a kid!' Is is really that much better than your hand?

You mean a scare tactic? I'm talking about hightened education and awareness to make logical and intelligent decisions, taking methods to virtually assure of no problems.

Is that better or worse than an irrational scare tactic?

I have a friend that has a kid with a psycho ex. He moved away, she called said she was pregnant. They tried being married, got divorced. Nothing but trouble since. His comment, 'The sex was not that good, not even close. I would have gotten no where near that vagina if I knew I'd be in some way tied to her for the rest of my life.'

Did he use appropriate contraceptives and practices?
If not, that's just another example of why we need to educate better.
 
2007-03-19 08:52:10 AM
FTFA: Similar conversations are taking place in communities beyond Loudoun, as federal funding for abstinence education has fueled an industry of abstinence-only educators, many of whom have been criticized for lacking professional training in health education.

This is the part I found truly disturbing.
 
2007-03-19 08:53:29 AM
A few things in this article merit attention:

as federal funding for abstinence education has fueled an industry of abstinence-only educators, many of whom have been criticized for lacking professional training in health education.

Yep, that not only means that fundies are crazy, but they are now getting federal funding to show up in our public schools to pass off their craziness as educational.

any religious speakers must sign a contract that they will stick to a secular message.

How the hell "abstinance only" can be interpreted as a secular message, especially coming from a Christian comedian who is being paid for by Life Line, a Christian pregnancy center, is simply beyond me. It would be like having a class on Intelligent Design deemed as secular because the Bible isn't mentioned. Oh, wait--I guess they are doing that too...
 
2007-03-19 08:53:55 AM
Fap with a cinder block?
Wait, What?

/flees from the kinky people
 
2007-03-19 08:54:30 AM
This is the thing people just can't seem to grasp.

We want to have sex, and we want to do it safely.

..And it's doable.

Every generation has its share of nay-sayers who will sit back in the crowd and chant to themselves "Who do they think they are? They'll never have moving pictures. The moon? It's too far away? Sex without risks? Never will happen!"

Yes, you people go enjoy your desolate sexless lives. I'll enjoy my risk-free sex-a-thons over here.
 
2007-03-19 08:55:21 AM
Got to love using the 1st amendment, the amendment of free speech, to try to censor and control speech. It's really rather disgusting.
 
2007-03-19 08:57:01 AM
The only 100% safe form of sex is masturbation. Abstinence is NO SEX AT ALL, ergo it's not safe sex. It's like saying the only 100% safe way to live is to not be alive.
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report