Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Think Progress)   Fox News says gov't. money for sex ed should be used instead for White House tours, apparently so kids can see where bjs happen instead of learn how to perform them safely   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 156
    More: Dumbass, Fox News, White House, control towers, birth controls, sex education, Planned Parenthood  
•       •       •

2880 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 10:45 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-29 10:28:10 AM  
 
2013-03-29 10:35:54 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The gross obsession with White House tours


Yeah, that pretty much nails it:

So, these kids come to town, they can't get the tour they scheduled through their member of Congress, and now they're not so happy with their member of Congress and the sequester. That means that member of Congress now has a problem with some of their constituents - and with the kinds of constituents who are likely to contact their member of Congress when their kid goes to Washington.
 
2013-03-29 10:42:04 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The gross obsession with White House tours


First thing I thought when I read the headline was "What is this freaking obsession with White House tours?"

/I'd say that sums it up nicely
 
2013-03-29 10:44:07 AM  
I don't know if there's any way to incorporate a cigar into a BJ and call it safe.
 
2013-03-29 10:46:58 AM  
So instead of learning how to fark they visit the place that will fark them for the rest of their lives?
 
2013-03-29 10:48:37 AM  
Why is the government in the tour business at all? It's not in the constitution.
 
2013-03-29 10:48:44 AM  
OK subby, I lol'd.

+1
 
2013-03-29 10:49:27 AM  
Shouldn't this make them happy? Keeping people away from the evil socialist muslim?
 
2013-03-29 10:49:36 AM  
If we teach them how to avoid unwanted reproduction, won't that allow a greater amount of social spending to be diverted to things like... White House tours?
 
2013-03-29 10:49:53 AM  
15 year old political joke day today?
 
2013-03-29 10:50:12 AM  

nocturnal001: Shouldn't this make them happy? Keeping people away from the evil socialist muslim?


I have it on good authority from my friends at Fox News that he is usually on vacation anyway.
 
2013-03-29 10:50:52 AM  
What is with this obsession with the tours?
 
2013-03-29 10:52:10 AM  
Teaching children how to make proper decisions about things that can affect them for the rest of their lives isn't important...........this is literally what conservatives believe.
 
2013-03-29 10:53:58 AM  
ERIC BOLLING: Now we find another $350 million is going to this program for kids as low as five years old. It's absolutely insane. $350 million, do you know how long that would keep the white house tours going? 100 years! The White House could be open for as long as us and our grandchildren would be around. Instead, they're going to learn - I don't even want to know what they're teaching them.

Poor Mrs. Bolling.
 
2013-03-29 10:54:50 AM  
In which some of us learn that shiat you like isn't free.
 
2013-03-29 10:56:37 AM  

Gosling: In which some of us learn that shiat you like isn't free.


Yeah, but they're patriots.  We should pander and cater to patriots like them.  One day maybe they'll spray you with their Patriot Juice and then you can get some trickle-down economics via bootstrappiness, you Marxist Muslin.
 
2013-03-29 10:57:26 AM  
learn how to perform them safely

As someone who has received a blow job once or twice, I feel I'm qualified to make this assessment:

How does one perform them unsafely? You stick your dick in the girl's mouth. If she has any common sense (which she doesn't because she's giving you a blow job) she'd keep her teeth out of the way.
 
2013-03-29 10:57:59 AM  
So they've moved on from Benghazi?
 
2013-03-29 11:00:18 AM  
They should replace sex ed with online classes.
 
2013-03-29 11:00:23 AM  

coeyagi: nocturnal001: Shouldn't this make them happy? Keeping people away from the evil socialist muslim?

I have it on good authority from my friends at Fox News that he is usually on vacation anyway.


Spending eleventy billion dollars doing it too!

I love that fake hotel receipt from Michelle.  So obviously fake it's just hilarious.  You can't even get bottle of frexinet champagne through hotel room service for $44.  Not to mention they forgot to add the room service fee and gratuity.  Pathetic.
 
2013-03-29 11:00:25 AM  
Where in the constitution does it say that White House tours are mandatory? Oh, its "the people's house"? Does that mean I can waltz into the Oval Office or pretty much any government building/base as I please just because?

Conservative "logic" on this issue is f*cking hilarious.
 
2013-03-29 11:00:39 AM  

Frank N Stein: learn how to perform them safely

As someone who has received a blow job once or twice, I feel I'm qualified to make this assessment:

How does one perform them unsafely? You stick your dick in the girl's mouth. If she has any common sense (which she doesn't because she's giving you a blow job) she'd keep her teeth out of the way.


For starters it's safer if she doesn't have your dick in her mouth.
 
2013-03-29 11:01:51 AM  

jaytkay: So they've moved on from Benghazi?


Did you hear? The mastermind behind the Benghazi attack was given a White House tour arranged through Friend of Hamas.
 
2013-03-29 11:02:04 AM  

verbaltoxin: Frank N Stein: learn how to perform them safely

As someone who has received a blow job once or twice, I feel I'm qualified to make this assessment:

How does one perform them unsafely? You stick your dick in the girl's mouth. If she has any common sense (which she doesn't because she's giving you a blow job) she'd keep her teeth out of the way.

For starters it's safer if she doesn't have your dick in her mouth.


It's ok, Frank isn't obviously using a 30-round magazine when he does it.
 
2013-03-29 11:02:08 AM  
Is that really a dangerous activity?

BJs, I mean. I assume white house tours are reasonably safe.
 
2013-03-29 11:02:46 AM  
Let them sponsor tours. Can be like an adopt a highway plan. They get a little sign that hangs up during their week.
 
2013-03-29 11:02:46 AM  
I don't know about you subby, but my sex ed class in high school didn't teach us how to perform a safe BJ.... of course that was 20 years ago so who knows what they are teaching kids now..

Proper application of a condom on a cucumber was about as raunchy as it got.

Actually, If I remember correctly it was mainly focused on "hey, you should really practice abstinence  but we are going to educate you about safe sex options as well"
 
2013-03-29 11:02:48 AM  

Frank N Stein: How does one perform them unsafely? You stick your dick in the girl's mouth. If she has any common sense (which she doesn't because she's giving you a blow job) she'd keep her teeth out of the way.


i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-29 11:03:32 AM  
Or the tours could be charged.  Who wouldn't want to go on the Biden A'Whirl ride
 
2013-03-29 11:04:02 AM  
Fox news obsession aside, I'm actually fairly bummed we're no longer given tours in the white house. It was a small but powerful thing that any person could see the inside of the house where the Leader of the Free World presides, to walk down the same halls where global policy was being shaped.
 
2013-03-29 11:04:08 AM  
How do you "perform" them safely?  Just curious.
 
2013-03-29 11:04:19 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: ERIC BOLLING: Now we find another $350 million is going to this program for kids as low as five years old. It's absolutely insane. $350 million, do you know how long that would keep the white house tours going? 100 years! The White House could be open for as long as us and our grandchildren would be around. Instead, they're going to learn - I don't even want to know what they're teaching them.

Poor Mrs. Bolling.


Of course he doesn't want to know what they're teaching in sex Ed for kindergartners. Because then he'd find out that it consists of "these are your no-no parts, if someone tries to touch them they're doing something bad and you should tell an adult", and then he couldn't be outraged anymore.

/that's the charitable interpretation
 
2013-03-29 11:04:21 AM  

verbaltoxin: For starters it's safer if she doesn't have your dick in her mouth.


Well that's her problem.
 
2013-03-29 11:04:46 AM  
These ninnies are actually TRYING to get electorally slaughtered. Nobody is this stupid.
 
2013-03-29 11:05:05 AM  
Why aren't "White House tours" at the top of the list of wasteful government spending that Republicans should be outraged about (and joyous at their cessation)?
 
2013-03-29 11:05:44 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: ERIC BOLLING: Now we find another $350 million is going to this program for kids as low as five years old. It's absolutely insane. $350 million, do you know how long that would keep the white house tours going? 100 years! The White House could be open for as long as us and our grandchildren would be around. Instead, they're going to learn - I don't even want to know what they're teaching them.

Poor Mrs. Bolling.


That type of sex education is teaching kids that adults shouldn't touch their private parts.....you are taking money away from programs designed to stop child molestation.
 
2013-03-29 11:05:46 AM  

Senor_Hat: Fox news obsession aside, I'm actually fairly bummed we're no longer given tours in the white house. It was a small but powerful thing that any person could see the inside of the house where the Leader of the Free World presides, to walk down the same halls where global policy was being shaped.


Sounds like only people with connections could get them, or had a very nice congressmen.
 
2013-03-29 11:06:05 AM  

SilentStrider: What is with this obsession with the tours?


See above. It's because the tours are set up through members of Congress and are generally attended by children of families who are engaged politically.

I.e, it makes Congressional Republicans look bad, not FartNAMBLA, so the right-wing blogodome is freaking out about it.
 
2013-03-29 11:06:15 AM  

GoodyearPimp: Why aren't "White House tours" at the top of the list of wasteful government spending that Republicans should be outraged about (and joyous at their cessation)?


If Obama had maintained the tours they would be.
 
2013-03-29 11:06:43 AM  
Is this a follow-up to the bacon condom thing from yesterday?  There's no "safe" to a beej.  Either you're getting a mouthful of whatever comes out or you're not really giving a beej.
 
2013-03-29 11:07:31 AM  
BS sensationalist liberal circle-jerk headline.  Move on folks.
 
2013-03-29 11:07:32 AM  

coeyagi: It's ok, Frank isn't obviously using a 30-round magazine when he does it.


So I'm slyly using a 30-round magazine?
 
2013-03-29 11:07:41 AM  

GoodyearPimp: Why aren't "White House tours" at the top of the list of wasteful government spending that Republicans should be outraged about (and joyous at their cessation)?


Because Fartplinko created the sequester (see Faux) and the sequester stopped them.  Ipso facto, the GOP wants them back and blames the black.
 
2013-03-29 11:08:29 AM  

Frank N Stein: coeyagi: It's ok, Frank isn't obviously using a 30-round magazine when he does it.

So I'm slyly using a 30-round magazine?


Sorry for the adverbial loophole, Frank, but no.
 
2013-03-29 11:09:03 AM  

Citrate1007: Philip Francis Queeg: ERIC BOLLING: Now we find another $350 million is going to this program for kids as low as five years old. It's absolutely insane. $350 million, do you know how long that would keep the white house tours going? 100 years! The White House could be open for as long as us and our grandchildren would be around. Instead, they're going to learn - I don't even want to know what they're teaching them.

Poor Mrs. Bolling.

That type of sex education is teaching kids that adults shouldn't touch their private parts.....you are taking money away from programs designed to stop child molestation.


That is a state's rights issue Sir.  It's my business if I want my kids to learn about molestation, and if I decide so I will teach them about it myself!
 
2013-03-29 11:09:04 AM  

sprd: BS sensationalist liberal circle-jerk headline.  Move on folks.


You sound tired, Bill.
 
2013-03-29 11:10:14 AM  

sprd: BS sensationalist liberal circle-jerk headline.  Move on folks.


Irony, we has it.
 
2013-03-29 11:10:40 AM  
Pro-tip: Don't get blown by a woman who ovulates and gestates orally.
 
2013-03-29 11:13:00 AM  

coeyagi: Frank N Stein: coeyagi: It's ok, Frank isn't obviously using a 30-round magazine when he does it.

So I'm slyly using a 30-round magazine?

Sorry for the adverbial loophole, Frank, but no.


Well in that case, it depends on which offers the better bang for the buck. The girl or the gun.
 
2013-03-29 11:13:19 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The gross obsession with White House tours


Goddamn it.
 
2013-03-29 11:13:34 AM  
Comprehensive sex education - including abstinence, including safer sex, including contraception - is the easiest, most effective and cheapest way to reduce the number of abortions. If you are against sex education, you're not as pro-life as you think you are, and you're more pro-abortion than the pro-choicers you despise.

Fox News will scream bloody murder if the abortion rate goes up, but denigrates the programs which actually reduce the number of abortions. I realize that you love sticking it to the Libs, but come on Conservatives, do you really enjoy being lied to?
 
2013-03-29 11:17:53 AM  

sprd: BS sensationalist liberal circle-jerk headline.  Move on folks.


i581.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-29 11:17:53 AM  
My conscience nags at me when I litter. How these farkers get through the day is lost on me.
 
2013-03-29 11:18:25 AM  

Frank N Stein: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: coeyagi: It's ok, Frank isn't obviously using a 30-round magazine when he does it.

So I'm slyly using a 30-round magazine?

Sorry for the adverbial loophole, Frank, but no.

Well in that case, it depends on which offers the better bang for the buck. The girl or the gun.


A BJ trumps a gun anytime.  Those are the Man Rules.*

*May not apply South of the Mason-Dixon line, West of the Mississippi and East of the Rockies.
 
2013-03-29 11:19:13 AM  

sprd: BS sensationalist liberal circle-jerk headline.  Move on folks.


You probably could just die and noone would care.
 
2013-03-29 11:19:16 AM  

Citrate1007: Philip Francis Queeg: ERIC BOLLING: Now we find another $350 million is going to this program for kids as low as five years old. It's absolutely insane. $350 million, do you know how long that would keep the white house tours going? 100 years! The White House could be open for as long as us and our grandchildren would be around. Instead, they're going to learn - I don't even want to know what they're teaching them.

Poor Mrs. Bolling.

That type of sex education is teaching kids that adults shouldn't touch their private parts.....you are taking money away from programs designed to stop child molestation.


I'd bet good money that, if presented with this fact, the Fox folks would say without irony that we shouldn't have to teach kids to avoid being molested, and that we should be teaching adults not to molest instead.
 
2013-03-29 11:22:09 AM  

inclemency: sprd: BS sensationalist liberal circle-jerk headline.  Move on folks.

You probably could just die and noone would care.


People who might care:

1) Parole officer - "Where the f*ck is this cracker?"
2) GBTV - another unrenewed subscription.
3) Garth Brooks - huge percentage drop in album sales.
 
2013-03-29 11:22:52 AM  
What's really funny, in a sort of eugenics way, is that the R's by reducing the education and funding for Birth Control/sex education, etc. is allowing more and more poor people to be born, increasing the number of traditionally D votors.

It's sort of like shooting yourself in the foot, yea.

Cognative Dissonance:  The BELLS,  the Bells!!!
 
2013-03-29 11:24:22 AM  

coeyagi: Frank N Stein: coeyagi: Frank N Stein: coeyagi: It's ok, Frank isn't obviously using a 30-round magazine when he does it.

So I'm slyly using a 30-round magazine?

Sorry for the adverbial loophole, Frank, but no.

Well in that case, it depends on which offers the better bang for the buck. The girl or the gun.

A BJ trumps a gun anytime.  Those are the Man Rules.*

*May not apply South of the Mason-Dixon line, West of the Mississippi and East of the Rockies.


Well duh. I'm making a play of your gun nut perception of me :)
 
2013-03-29 11:25:28 AM  

coeyagi: inclemency: sprd: BS sensationalist liberal circle-jerk headline.  Move on folks.

You probably could just die and noone would care.

People who might care:

1) Parole officer - "Where the f*ck is this cracker?"
2) GBTV - another unrenewed subscription.
3) Garth Brooks - huge percentage drop in album sales.


That's crazy. I ALSO had him pegged as a lunatic who buys thousands of copies of Garth Brooks albums.

What a strange coincidence!
 
2013-03-29 11:29:23 AM  
If they want to teach BJ safety, they could use "The World According to Garp" in the curriculum as a "what not to do" example.
 
2013-03-29 11:29:46 AM  
A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village says, "Oh how wonderful." But a Zen master who lives in the village says, "We'll see." The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in the village says, "Oh how awful." The Zen master says, "We'll see." The village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go to war. But, because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, "Oh, how wonderful." The Zen master says, "We'll see."
 
2013-03-29 11:30:38 AM  

OKObserver: How do you "perform" them safely?  Just curious.


Ensure the recipient's spouse and/or girl/boyfriend is not going to show up and stab you afterwards, for one.
 
2013-03-29 11:35:50 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The gross obsession with White House tours


Chris Matthews much?
 
2013-03-29 11:36:26 AM  

Senor_Hat: A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village says, "Oh how wonderful." But a Zen master who lives in the village says, "We'll see." The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in the village says, "Oh how awful." The Zen master says, "We'll see." The village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go to war. But, because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, "Oh, how wonderful." The Zen master says, "We'll see."


Spoiler alert: Turns out the Zen Master was a stroke victim and could only say "We'll see."
 
2013-03-29 11:52:31 AM  
There would probably be a much better chance for education in the House and Senate.  I'm sure there are plenty of congresscritters on their knees in front of some type of lobbyist.
 
2013-03-29 12:04:25 PM  
I grew up in the 70s and 80s. I had sex ed pretty much from 5th grade on to high school.

You know what? It wasn't the "put the condom on the banana" but the "we know that you want to go out there and get your freak on, and we're not going to say that it doesn't seem like a good idea right now, or that it doesn't feel good, but here are the risks you may face, and here's some of the consequences, and since we KNOW you're going to do stuff, here's some ways to be safe, because it's not just AIDS and other sh*t out there, but a fairly high risk that unprotected sex will mean babies in your future. Babies you AREN'T ready for you lovable li'l Muppets" variety.

You know when I had my first child? 32. You know why? Because I knew the risks, I knew the consequences, and I was prepared for it. Did it stop me from all sorts of stuff in high school? Not in the least, but I was at least aware, and I took those precautions. Lived with my future wife for 8 years before we got married, and in that time: no kids. Why? Because we knew we weren't ready for kids, and we were both prepared.

It's not about morality to prepare kids. Or rather, it IS about morality to prepare kids. Kids who know the risks, who know the score, are better able to cope. They KNOW what their church and parents are going to say, but they have the knowledge to be prepared. Not just filled with apocryphal tales of how terrible life will be, but able to fully consent and able to take responsibility for their actions. Keeping kids in the dark about their sexuality isn't protecting them. It is dooming them to make the same damn mistakes that others have made. Education isn't an enemy, and that is one of the odd things that the Religious Right seems to have ingrained at this point. That kids if kids aren't aware of their risks, save that BAD things will happen, then they won't fall prey to temptation. Entirely ignoring the very first big lesson in Genesis, that Adam and Eve fell to even. Without a concept of "die" how could Adam and Eve have known the consequences of eating of the Forbidden Fruit? "Don't do that!" didn't even work in the Garden of Eden, and folks expect that their own flawed selves are going to trump biological urges that they themselves fell to?

Information isn't going to keep kids from experimenting, or getting their freak on. It simply has never worked to forbid sex, but to forbid sex, and then deny kids access to protection, or even knowledge on how to do so, or to even discuss sex in a meaningful way, save between themselves, and without any real guidance, we are essentially throwing out hands up in the air. Give kids the knowledge, and teach them how to protect themselves, give them the tools, and the knowledge, and then advice on how to deal with this pesky biological urge that says, "NOW! NOW! NOW!" and maybe even give them guidance. Real guidance. This mystification, coupled with sexualization in damn near EVERY form of media, doesn't really work to keep kids from experimenting, only with education and access to protection can they navigate intelligently.

You want less welfare cases? Less kids up for adoption? Less folks having kids out of wedlock? Less folks who are forced to marry before they are ready? Less folks putting a strain on budgets with their early children? Less pressure on your school systems? Less folks on assistance? Then sex ed and access to all sorts of birth control is the best way to do so. Not dooming kids to narrowed choices IS the moral choice. Giving them the tools to choose, and choose wisely is the moral choice. It is also the less fiscally onerous choice, which then saves our budgets for other things we might need. Less folks on welfare. Less folks needing emergency care. Less folks reliant on the state. It is the sane choice. It is likewise the moral choice, because we ALL know that folks are flawed. We are these amazing biologic machines whose main imperative is "BREED HARDER!" and we are geared for it, as soon as the pipes and fittings are mature enough to do so, but we don't live in the savanna any longer.  We don't have to replace ourselves quite as quickly. We want civilized folks, then we have to educate them, and allow them access to the tools to protect themselves.
 
2013-03-29 12:08:18 PM  

Citrate1007: That type of sex education is teaching kids that adults shouldn't touch their private parts.....you are taking money away from programs designed to stop child molestation.


2012 showed them that they haven't done enough to court Catholic voters.
 
2013-03-29 12:17:31 PM  

Biff_Steel: Why is the government in the tour business at all? It's not in the constitution.


Neither is sex-ed (at the Federal level). Judging by the need for the high school to provide child care for the spawn of students neither the sex-ed nor the free condoms given out by school nurses' office are very effective.
 
2013-03-29 12:18:00 PM  

cwolf20: Or the tours could be charged.  Who wouldn't want to go on the Biden A'Whirl ride


Legitimate Rape-itron
 
2013-03-29 12:19:04 PM  

hasty ambush: Neither is sex-ed (at the Federal level). Judging by the need for the high school to provide child care for the spawn of students neither the sex-ed nor the free condoms given out by school nurses' office are very effective.


Yeah, in places like MIssissippi and Texas...places that don't offer comprehensive sex ed.

FULL CIRCLE
 
2013-03-29 12:25:39 PM  
Good grief. FOX News is basically the house of a thousand halfwits.
 
2013-03-29 12:26:35 PM  

Poopspasm: Good grief. FOX News is basically the house of a thousand halfwits.


You give them about 500 too many wits.
 
2013-03-29 12:32:45 PM  
Americans, always with the money comment.

FACT
There is no evidence that sex education in schools has helped prevent, control or reduce the number of babies or STDs in America. Birth of babies to teenage females and STDs across the 15-30 age group continue to rise since the 50s.
 
2013-03-29 12:34:44 PM  

sprd: BS sensationalist liberal circle-jerk headline.  Move on folks.



Well you're a swell egg...
 
2013-03-29 12:35:27 PM  

Frank N Stein: learn how to perform them safely

As someone who has received a blow job once or twice, I feel I'm qualified to make this assessment:

How does one perform them unsafely? You stick your dick in the girl's mouth. If she has any common sense (which she doesn't because she's giving you a blow job) she'd keep her teeth out of the way.


Trust me when I tell you that it is an acquired skill. There is a lot that can go wrong if one of the parties doesn't know what they're doing.
 
2013-03-29 12:36:45 PM  

nocturnal001: Citrate1007: Philip Francis Queeg: ERIC BOLLING: Now we find another $350 million is going to this program for kids as low as five years old. It's absolutely insane. $350 million, do you know how long that would keep the white house tours going? 100 years! The White House could be open for as long as us and our grandchildren would be around. Instead, they're going to learn - I don't even want to know what they're teaching them.

Poor Mrs. Bolling.

That type of sex education is teaching kids that adults shouldn't touch their private parts.....you are taking money away from programs designed to stop child molestation.

That is a state's rights issue Sir.  It's my business if I want my kids to learn about molestation, and if I decide so I will teach them about it myself!


That's what everyone is afraid of.
 
2013-03-29 12:37:05 PM  

Citrate1007: Teaching children how to make proper decisions about things that can affect them for the rest of their lives isn't important...........this is literally what conservatives believe.


How many Conservatives have you literally interviewed to come to this conclusion?
 
2013-03-29 12:39:48 PM  

Neruos: Americans, always with the money comment.

FACT
There is no evidence that sex education in schools has helped prevent, control or reduce the number of babies or STDs in America. Birth of babies to teenage females and STDs across the 15-30 age group continue to rise since the 50s.


OK, so you've got facts, but what about teenage MALES?!
 
2013-03-29 12:41:49 PM  

Lumpmoose: I don't know if there's any way to incorporate a cigar into a BJ and call it safe.


If they stick to delivering pizzas and make sure they take all clothing worn to the dry cleaners promptly, then no one has to know...unless someone leaks it to Drudge of course.
 
2013-03-29 12:47:29 PM  

nocturnal001: Citrate1007: Philip Francis Queeg: ERIC BOLLING: Now we find another $350 million is going to this program for kids as low as five years old. It's absolutely insane. $350 million, do you know how long that would keep the white house tours going? 100 years! The White House could be open for as long as us and our grandchildren would be around. Instead, they're going to learn - I don't even want to know what they're teaching them.

Poor Mrs. Bolling.

That type of sex education is teaching kids that adults shouldn't touch their private parts.....you are taking money away from programs designed to stop child molestation.

That is a state's rights issue Sir.  It's my business if I want my kids to learn about molestation, and if I decide so I will teach them about it myself!


So you're saying Jerry Sandusky was only performing a community service?
 
2013-03-29 12:50:57 PM  
They're angry at the sex ed because they know that it will reduce the number of little bastards.  A reduction in this strategic resource will end up as a severe reduction in Republican adults.  Therefore sex education is a direct attack on the Republican party. Q.E.D.
 
2013-03-29 12:54:16 PM  
What the fark is up with everyone asking how to perform a safe blowjob? You might not be able to get pregnant in the mouth but you sure as hell can get herpes in the mouth.
 
2013-03-29 12:54:22 PM  

IlGreven: nocturnal001: Citrate1007: Philip Francis Queeg: ERIC BOLLING: Now we find another $350 million is going to this program for kids as low as five years old. It's absolutely insane. $350 million, do you know how long that would keep the white house tours going? 100 years! The White House could be open for as long as us and our grandchildren would be around. Instead, they're going to learn - I don't even want to know what they're teaching them.

Poor Mrs. Bolling.

That type of sex education is teaching kids that adults shouldn't touch their private parts.....you are taking money away from programs designed to stop child molestation.

That is a state's rights issue Sir.  It's my business if I want my kids to learn about molestation, and if I decide so I will teach them about it myself!

So you're saying Jerry Sandusky was only performing a community service?


He is clearly a hero for privatizing a wasteful government program. The catholic church too.

Proof positive that the super team of private enterprise and the church can solve our issues without stupid government.
 
2013-03-29 12:55:06 PM  

Neruos: Americans, always with the money comment.

FACT
There is no evidence that sex education in schools has helped prevent, control or reduce the number of babies or STDs in America. Birth of babies to teenage females and STDs across the 15-30 age group continue to rise since the 50s.


FACT:
You are full of shiat. Births may have risen as an absolute, as our overall population has grown over that same time period. But the teen birth RATE was falling in the 90s and early 2000s.

The Guttmacher Institute also noted contraception's role in preventing unintended pregnancies in a
Additionally, they cite studies that show reductions in teenage pregnancy thanks to increased contraception use. Notably:
One study found that from 1991 to 2003, contraceptive use improved among sexually active U.S. high school students... these adolescents' risk of pregnancy declined 21% over the 12 years. Another study found that increased contraceptive use was responsible for 77% of the sharp decline in pregnancy among 15-17-year-olds between 1995 and 2002 (decreased sexual activity was responsible for the other 23%); and increased contraceptive use was responsible for all of the decline in pregnancy among 18-19-year-olds.
There is also strong evidence that comprehensive sex education (as opposed to abstinence-only) helps

So let me offer you some safer sex advice... go fark yourself.
 
2013-03-29 12:57:30 PM  

Neruos: Americans, always with the money comment.

FACT
There is no evidence that sex education in schools has helped prevent, control or reduce the number of babies or STDs in America. Birth of babies to teenage females and STDs across the 15-30 age group continue to rise since the 50s.


If you don't go looking for evidence, you probably won't find any.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2005/02/sex-education.aspx
Plenty more where that came from.
 
2013-03-29 01:00:09 PM  
I've been on that tour.  It's pretty boring, TBH. Without a guide, you're basically looking at a bunch of nice furniture and paintings you've probably seen before.  The Kennedy painting was the only interesting thing I really remember about it, and like I said, it wasn't like I'd never seen it before.  You don't get anywhere near anything interesting.  Definitely not worth the hassle of a background check.
 
2013-03-29 01:00:12 PM  

OKObserver: How do you "perform" them safely?  Just curious.


Sadly, the correct answer is "With a condom."

Which is, quite frankly, the only piece of advice I ever give my patients that I am sure is 100% ignored. Nor do I pretend that I expect them to do it, although I do recommend flavored condoms.

Well documented to transmit gonorrhea, viral hepatitis, syphilis, and herpes 1 and 2, of course. Tiny risk of transmission of HIV, but not zero.

http://www.uhs.uga.edu/sexualhealth/oral_sex.html
http://www.cdc.gov/std/Herpes/STDFact-Herpes.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/STDFact-gonorrhea.htm
 
2013-03-29 01:04:24 PM  

Neruos: Americans, always with the money comment.

FACT
There is no evidence that sex education in schools has helped prevent, control or reduce the number of babies or STDs in America. Birth of babies to teenage females and STDs across the 15-30 age group continue to rise since the 50s.


Really? I'd be dying to know where you get your facts from. Because every bit of evidence I've seen is the exact opposite. The rise in education directly correlates with a reduction in those problems. The places where those issues are growing are typically in the South, where there's the most resistance to actual sex education. FACT. But mine have references:

http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/LongDescriptors.htm
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/national-data/NBR-teens-15-19.asp x
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm
 
2013-03-29 01:07:42 PM  

Neruos: FACT
There is no evidence that sex education in schools has helped prevent, control or reduce the number of babies or STDs in America.


You could not be more wrong.  And considering this is the internet, that's saying something.

For starters...
 
2013-03-29 01:13:26 PM  

Trivia Jockey: hasty ambush: Neither is sex-ed (at the Federal level). Judging by the need for the high school to provide child care for the spawn of students neither the sex-ed nor the free condoms given out by school nurses' office are very effective.

Yeah, in places like MIssissippi and Texas...places that don't offer comprehensive sex ed.

FULL CIRCLE


or California

or Vermont

etc, etc, etc. etc.
 
2013-03-29 01:17:43 PM  

hasty ambush: Trivia Jockey: hasty ambush: Neither is sex-ed (at the Federal level). Judging by the need for the high school to provide child care for the spawn of students neither the sex-ed nor the free condoms given out by school nurses' office are very effective.

Yeah, in places like MIssissippi and Texas...places that don't offer comprehensive sex ed.

FULL CIRCLE

or California

or Vermont

etc, etc, etc. etc.



First line of your first link:  "Although California's teen birth rate remains lower than the United States' rate, and substantially lower than demographically comparable states such as Texas..."

Second link is one paragraph with no factual basis with which to understand the statistic.

On the contrary, there are several links posted above by me and others which presents the OVERWHELMINGLY conclusive evidence that comprehensive sex ed is orders of magnitude better in reducing teen pregnancy and STDs than abstinence-only states.

You're fighting a losing battle here, pal.
 
2013-03-29 01:29:23 PM  
The Why Not Guy:
   Neruos :
   FACT
   There is no evidence that sex education in schools has helped prevent, control or reduce
   the number of babies or STDs in America. Birth of babies to teenage females and STDs
   across the 15-30 age group continue to rise since the 50s.

FACT:
You are full of shiat. Births may have risen as an absolute, as our overall population has grown over that same time period. But the teen birth RATE was falling in the 90s and early 2000s.


He may be full of shiat, but at least he can read.
What he said was that sex ed in schools and that there was no direct effect.  In order to come to a conclusion, one would need to compare schools that provided the education vs those that did not.  One would then compare the birth rates.

Providing a country wide aggregate number proves nothing.  It could be influenced by many things, including pirates or that tight jeans are the latest fashion in men's clothes.
 
2013-03-29 01:33:15 PM  
The fact that we're even having a debate questioning whether comprehensive sex ed in public schools is beneficial or not is so sad...given that we're not Ghana or Afghanistan.
 
2013-03-29 01:34:09 PM  
I bet any kid with an internet connection and some free time that is really curious about the birds and the bees, can get all the facts they need.

Unfortunately, they also have access to porn that makes even a jaded old hedonist like me wince once in a while.

Including it in the educational system only ensures there is a uniformity of what they are given in the context of the people their guardians have chosen for them to learn from.
 
2013-03-29 01:35:10 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: Providing a country wide aggregate number proves nothing.


I mentioned the country wide aggregate in response to the claim that births to teenage females have been on the rise CONTINUALLY since the 1950s. They may have in terms of an absolute number, but they most definitely have not in terms of a rate, which is a better indication of whether sex education is effective.

So basically you mocked my reading skills while misreading my post. Let me guess: Conservative?
 
2013-03-29 01:35:51 PM  

vudukungfu: I bet any kid with an internet connection and some free time that is really curious about the birds and the bees, can get all the facts they need.


Of course...they'll learn all about the benefits of DVDA, how you can avoid pregnancy via bukkake, and they'll be able to solve the age-old math problem involving a couple of girls and a cup.
 
2013-03-29 01:36:50 PM  

Trivia Jockey: benefits of DVDA


Oh, great. Now I have something ELSE to Look Up.
 
2013-03-29 01:37:38 PM  
I was under the impression that conservatives hated sex ed.  Shouldn't this be something they're excited about?
 
2013-03-29 01:37:52 PM  

The Why Not Guy: So basically you mocked my reading skills while misreading my post. Let me guess: Conservative?


I'd stop engaging those two...political leanings are irrelevant here.  You have to be the intellectual equivalent of a jellyfish to make the case that comprehensive sex ed isn't effective or beneficial.
 
2013-03-29 01:38:08 PM  

vudukungfu: I bet any kid with an internet connection and some free time that is really curious about the birds and the bees, can get all the facts they need.


Hopefully they'll seek out that information for themselves* before they find themselves in a situation where they need it.

* despite the fact that they may not even know there's anything to seek out in the first place
 
2013-03-29 01:39:11 PM  

El Hodor: I was under the impression that conservatives hated sex ed.


Yet they're so very concerned about who's having it and why they're having it.  Go figure.
 
2013-03-29 01:44:09 PM  
That anyone pays attention to anything these idiots say is a tragedy. Trying to see if there's a market for a remake of Strange Brew would be productive.
 
2013-03-29 01:48:46 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Nutsac_Jim: Providing a country wide aggregate number proves nothing.

I mentioned the country wide aggregate in response to the claim that births to teenage females have been on the rise CONTINUALLY since the 1950s. They may have in terms of an absolute number, but they most definitely have not in terms of a rate, which is a better indication of whether sex education is effective.

So basically you mocked my reading skills while misreading my post. Let me guess: Conservative?


I guess if you can't come up with a logical argument, stick with insults.

Nobody gives a rats ass that the raw number is up.  What matters is the rate; however, the rate can be affected by many things.  Hell, it could be caused by hormones in the water, tight pants, or Justin Bieber.

If you want to assert that sex ed is effective, then you must compare it to school districts where sex ed is not implemented.   If you don't show that number, then don't get pissed off that some people don't want
a teacher to show them how to use a banana.
 
2013-03-29 01:54:47 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: I guess if you can't come up with a logical argument, stick with insults.


You began our little conversation with:

He may be full of shiat, but at least he can read.

If you open by insulting me, you kind of forfeit the right to whine when I insult you back.
 
2013-03-29 01:55:25 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: If you want to assert that sex ed is effective, then you must compare it to school districts where sex ed is not implemented.


We already did that.  This is but one example, btw...Google was rife with others.
 
2013-03-29 02:02:27 PM  

Trivia Jockey: hasty ambush: Trivia Jockey: hasty ambush: Neither is sex-ed (at the Federal level). Judging by the need for the high school to provide child care for the spawn of students neither the sex-ed nor the free condoms given out by school nurses' office are very effective.

Yeah, in places like MIssissippi and Texas...places that don't offer comprehensive sex ed.

FULL CIRCLE

or California

or Vermont

etc, etc, etc. etc.


First line of your first link:  "Although California's teen birth rate remains lower than the United States' rate, and substantially lower than demographically comparable states such as Texas..."

Second link is one paragraph with no factual basis with which to understand the statistic.

On the contrary, there are several links posted above by me and others which presents the OVERWHELMINGLY conclusive evidence that comprehensive sex ed is orders of magnitude better in reducing teen pregnancy and STDs than abstinence-only states.

You're fighting a losing battle here, pal.


Nonsense. Spin it how you want the rats are increasing (after an admitted period of decline).

Look at STDs, Despite money spent on "education and and awareness" look at the increase in San Francisco:

Nationwide we have and epedemic-More Than 110 Million Americans Have an STD: Report

According to the report-half of new infections each year are among young people. WIth that much unprotected sex one can see an increase in pregnancy also.

STD rates rise in San Francisco

You might as well as be arguing for increase DARE funding:

D.A.R.E. doesn't work -- USA Today


It is like the anti-smoking campaigns. Is there really anybody (with a brain) who still thinks smoking is OK?

Is there anybody unprotected sex with multiple partners, smoking crack or getting pregnant at 15 is OK? You are spending money trying to convince the stupid not to be stupid.
 
2013-03-29 02:02:32 PM  
TOURGATE:  DAY 23.
 
2013-03-29 02:05:17 PM  

verbaltoxin: 15 year old political joke day today?


Hmmmm if one were to wait about 5 years one can get a bj from someone older than a Clinton BJ joke.

Farkers, we're old.
 
2013-03-29 02:06:37 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: verbaltoxin: 15 year old political joke day today?

Hmmmm if one were to wait about 5 years one can get a bj from someone older younger than Clinton BJ jokes.

Farkers, we're old.


Damn, and I'm from back in the day  before we had preview.
 
2013-03-29 02:07:50 PM  

hasty ambush: Nonsense. Spin it how you want the rats are increasing (after an admitted period of decline).


One factor contributing to this increase was the Bush administration's mandate that all federally funded programs be abstinence-only programs, which have been proven to be between 7 and 13 percent less effective than programs which teach abstinence and harm reduction. Abstinence-only programs are not comprehensive sex education.

Now if you want to discuss whether it's the Federal government's business to fund these programs, well, I think it's money well spent but that's at least a discussion. Saying they're not effective is simply wrong.
 
2013-03-29 02:08:37 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: verbaltoxin: 15 year old political joke day today?

Hmmmm if one were to wait about 5 years one can get a bj from someone older than a Clinton BJ joke.

Farkers, we're old.


No, that's ridiculous. There's no way... ok, fine, that's how dates work. But it doesn't mean I'm old.
 
2013-03-29 02:11:13 PM  

hasty ambush: Is there anybody unprotected sex with multiple partners, smoking crack or getting pregnant at 15 is OK? You are spending money trying to convince the stupid not to be stupid.


Any money spent on you would similarly be a waste.

You are comparing apples and oranges.  To guage the effectiveness of sex ed, you need to do two things: (1) actually farking reasearch it (like was extensively done in the link I posted that you've ignored) and (2) compare areas with abstinence-only ed versus those with comprehensive sex ed.

Every time such research has been done, the results were crystal clear...the incidences of STDs and teen pregnancies in abstinence-only areas were almost always much higher.  Just talking about 'national rates of STD infection' don't even begin to address the particular question here.

So, go ahead...post ONE accredited study that concluded that there's no appreciable difference between kids who've had abstinence-only sex ed and those who've has comprehensive sex ed.  I dare you.
 
2013-03-29 02:11:49 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Saying they're not effective is simply wrong.


This.
 
2013-03-29 02:24:49 PM  
hasty ambush:

iat is like the anti-smoking campaigns. Is there really anybody (with a brain) who still thinks smoking is OK?

Is there anybody unprotected sex with multiple partners, smoking crack or getting pregnant at 15 is OK? You are spending money trying to convince the stupid not to be stupid.


That's definitely not true.  It's not just about stupidity, it's about not being informed.  How many people out there think you can't get a girl pregnant if she is on her period for example? Many many people of normal intelligence.

Just look at this thread.  "lol how can you have unsafe oral sex? lolz"  Those guys either do not know, or are discounting the chances of herpes etc.
 
2013-03-29 02:34:44 PM  

hasty ambush: Is there anybody unprotected sex with multiple partners, smoking crack or getting pregnant at 15 is OK? You are spending money trying to convince the stupid not to be stupid.


Interestingly, you know where the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country is right now? North Dakota, where the fracking boom is going on, and there are a lot more men than women.

The theory behind this: the women can be pickier, and all of them have a decent shot of landing a guy with a decent future (compared to the ND baseline). There are lots of teenagers that do think getting pregnant at 15 is OK - ones with no prospects.
 
2013-03-29 02:35:15 PM  

nocturnal001: Just look at this thread.  "lol how can you have unsafe oral sex? lolz"  Those guys either do not know, or are discounting the chances of herpes etc.


This. I work with people who do HIV testing. The ignorance out there about all aspects of sexuality is shocking. I'm talking about basics like "you can or can't get pregnant from doing this". Don't ever assume "oh, everyone knows that" because probably not everyone does, and the uninformed are just as sexually active as the informed.
 
2013-03-29 02:40:15 PM  

sigdiamond2000: . It's because the tours are set up through members of Congress and are generally attended by children of families who are engaged politically.


That's absurd.  Every single tour/guide book on visiting Washington advised you to contact your Congressman for tickets.  Not 'only contact if you're a big-time political supporter', like you imagine.

/Done the tour twice with Congressional tickets; never donated a dollar to the guy
//Everyone on the tours were families on vacation
 
2013-03-29 02:41:24 PM  

hasty ambush: Is there anybody unprotected sex with multiple partners, smoking crack or getting pregnant at 15 is OK? You are spending money trying to convince the stupid not to be stupid.


Sexuality is just like anything else. Kids aren't born knowing algebra or physics or even how to read... we teach them those things because it's important for them to know it. Kids aren't born knowing how to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancies or STDs or HIV. We have to teach them, because unfortunately knowing how to fark seems to come naturally. We have to teach them how to use contraceptives effectively. We have to teach them how to value themselves enough not to be promiscuous. If they're sexually active we have to teach them how to do it as safely as possible.

It's not a matter of being stupid. It's a matter of being uninformed, and teaching them is the only way to cure uninformed.
 
2013-03-29 02:47:36 PM  

The Why Not Guy: hasty ambush: Is there anybody unprotected sex with multiple partners, smoking crack or getting pregnant at 15 is OK? You are spending money trying to convince the stupid not to be stupid.

Sexuality is just like anything else. Kids aren't born knowing algebra or physics or even how to read... we teach them those things because it's important for them to know it. Kids aren't born knowing how to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancies or STDs or HIV. We have to teach them, because unfortunately knowing how to fark seems to come naturally. We have to teach them how to use contraceptives effectively. We have to teach them how to value themselves enough not to be promiscuous. If they're sexually active we have to teach them how to do it as safely as possible.

It's not a matter of being stupid. It's a matter of being uninformed, and teaching them is the only way to cure uninformed.


I don't think those kids in California, who have been through years of sex-ed, are uninformed.  They are just teenagers who don't think it'll happen to them.  Telling them AGAIN, for the 400th time, about condoms won't suddenly make them change behavior.
 
2013-03-29 02:48:42 PM  

hasty ambush: Trivia Jockey: hasty ambush: Trivia Jockey: hasty ambush: Neither is sex-ed (at the Federal level). Judging by the need for the high school to provide child care for the spawn of students neither the sex-ed nor the free condoms given out by school nurses' office are very effective.

Yeah, in places like MIssissippi and Texas...places that don't offer comprehensive sex ed.

FULL CIRCLE

or California

or Vermont

etc, etc, etc. etc.


First line of your first link:  "Although California's teen birth rate remains lower than the United States' rate, and substantially lower than demographically comparable states such as Texas..."

Second link is one paragraph with no factual basis with which to understand the statistic.

On the contrary, there are several links posted above by me and others which presents the OVERWHELMINGLY conclusive evidence that comprehensive sex ed is orders of magnitude better in reducing teen pregnancy and STDs than abstinence-only states.

You're fighting a losing battle here, pal.

Nonsense. Spin it how you want the rats are increasing (after an admitted period of decline).

Look at STDs, Despite money spent on "education and and awareness" look at the increase in San Francisco:

Nationwide we have and epedemic-More Than 110 Million Americans Have an STD: Report

According to the report-half of new infections each year are among young people. WIth that much unprotected sex one can see an increase in pregnancy also.

STD rates rise in San Francisco

You might as well as be arguing for increase DARE funding:

D.A.R.E. doesn't work -- USA Today


It is like the anti-smoking campaigns. Is there really anybody (with a brain) who still thinks smoking is OK?

Is there anybody unprotected sex with multiple partners, smoking crack or getting pregnant at 15 is OK? You are spending money trying to convince the stupid not to be stupid.


Wow.... You are adorable....
 
2013-03-29 02:48:48 PM  
"Fox News says..."

forum.sportsmogul.com
 
2013-03-29 02:51:04 PM  

vudukungfu: Trivia Jockey: benefits of DVDA

Oh, great. Now I have something ELSE to Look Up.


It came right before Blu-Ray.
 
2013-03-29 02:54:32 PM  

RickN99: I don't think those kids in California, who have been through years of sex-ed, are uninformed.  They are just teenagers who don't think it'll happen to them.  Telling them AGAIN, for the 400th time, about condoms won't suddenly make them change behavior.


Then maybe you're telling them the wrong way. Teenagers thinking they're invulnerable is a common problem, and a program that takes this into account and addresses it will be more successful than a program that simply tells them to use condoms. Remember what a joke the "Just Say No!" campaign was? "Just Use a Condom!" is every bit as ridiculous. Instead, let's teach them why it's important to use condoms. How to use condoms effectively. How to have fun other, safer ways. How to stand up for yourself and insist your partner use a condom. How to put off sexual activity until you're more mature.

See the difference?
 
2013-03-29 03:00:26 PM  

RickN99: I don't think those kids in California, who have been through years of sex-ed, are uninformed. They are just teenagers who don't think it'll happen to them. Telling them AGAIN, for the 400th time, about condoms won't suddenly make them change behavior.


Sex ed isn't designed to be effective with every single child.  Nothing is 100% effective.  But when you look at the population of kids getting comprehensive sex ed as a whole, it's pretty obvious that it's effective when compared to abstinence-only education (or no education at all).
 
2013-03-29 03:06:42 PM  
Then maybe they should have negotiated which things should have been cut, instead of forcing across-the-board cuts via the sequester.
 
2013-03-29 03:07:34 PM  

Trivia Jockey: Sex ed isn't designed to be effective with every single child. Nothing is 100% effective.


If a kid in California fails algebra I wonder if Rick thinks we should just stop teaching algebra.
 
2013-03-29 03:29:59 PM  
"We're sucking, we're sucking, and... we're stopping."
 
2013-03-29 03:47:29 PM  
I thought tours were free?
 
2013-03-29 03:55:41 PM  
Brilliant! That way the little kids can bring their own little kids to tour the White House!

This is especially important in Red States where they have a lot more baby mommas and children born out of wedlock.
 
2013-03-29 03:56:01 PM  

Colour_out_of_Space: It came right before Blu-Ray.


Not taking a chance.
Not at work.
Nuh-huh.
Wait till I get home.
Not again.
Not after the Blue Waffle incident.
We'll still cleaning up her after that one.
 
2013-03-29 04:03:17 PM  

RickN99: sigdiamond2000: . It's because the tours are set up through members of Congress and are generally attended by children of families who are engaged politically.

That's absurd.  Every single tour/guide book on visiting Washington advised you to contact your Congressman for tickets.  Not 'only contact if you're a big-time political supporter', like you imagine.

/Done the tour twice with Congressional tickets; never donated a dollar to the guy
//Everyone on the tours were families on vacation


Hmm, good to know. When I lived there I think tours were still of limits to everyone.
 
2013-03-29 04:07:29 PM  
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
HIV transmissions, up 12% and continues to rise. Someone apparently can not understand statistics, but pictures are included for those.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm
Someone posted this, but clearly didn't understand what it means, but in the first sentence it says and I quote.
"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year- almost half of them among young people 15 to 24 years of age".

As the population grows, this will continue to grow, we call this, a statistical trend for those watching today.
 
2013-03-29 04:17:03 PM  

Neruos: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm
Someone posted this, but clearly didn't understand what it means, but in the first sentence it says and I quote.
"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year- almost half of them among young people 15 to 24 years of age".

As the population grows, this will continue to grow, we call this, a statistical trend for those watching today.


Yes, but that's not the issue we're discussing.  We are not saying that comprehensive sex ed elimninates STD transmission.  We're saying that between comprehensive sex ed and abstinence-only sex ed (or none at all), the former is clearly better and more effective than the latter.

Obviously, when the population grows, you're going to have more people who have STDs...because there are more people.

What you're missing is the question of how many more young people would get STDs without good sex ed?

So, I will say it again - show me an accredited study that found that comprehensive sex ed doesn't result in a lower rate of STDs and teen pregnancies as opposed to no sex ed or abstinence-only sex ed.  Go ahead, try to find one.
 
2013-03-29 04:17:35 PM  

Neruos: HIV transmissions, up 12% and continues to rise. CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new (STD) infections occur each year- almost half of them among young people 15 to 24 years of age". As the population grows, this will continue to grow, we call this, a statistical trend for those watching today.


That's why we're calling for comprehensive sex education instead of abstinence-only programs which leave out such important details as safer sex and contraception. Infections are on the rise among young people at least in part because we're not giving them all the information and skills they need to protect themselves.
 
2013-03-29 04:19:39 PM  

Neruos: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
HIV transmissions, up 12% and continues to rise. Someone apparently can not understand statistics, but pictures are included for those.


You're lying.  First of all, the 12% number was for gay men, not young people or even the population at large.  Secondly, you skipped over this part:

CDC estimates that 1,148,200 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 207,600 (18.1%) who are unaware of their infectionhttp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm#ref1">1 . Over the past decade, the number of people living with HIV has increased, while the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. Still, the pace of new infections continues at far too high a level-particularly among certain groups.
 
2013-03-29 04:21:47 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Neruos: HIV transmissions, up 12% and continues to rise. CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new (STD) infections occur each year- almost half of them among young people 15 to 24 years of age". As the population grows, this will continue to grow, we call this, a statistical trend for those watching today.

That's why we're calling for comprehensive sex education instead of abstinence-only programs which leave out such important details as safer sex and contraception. Infections are on the rise among young people at least in part because we're not giving them all the information and skills they need to protect themselves.


I looked at his link, he's lying.  It's making me suspect this is a troll.
 
2013-03-29 04:21:57 PM  

verbaltoxin: 15 year old political joke day today?


Dude, she was 21 at the time.
 
2013-03-29 04:37:29 PM  
Fox News says...

That's where I usually stop.
 
2013-03-29 04:45:20 PM  

Senor_Hat: Fox news obsession aside, I'm actually fairly bummed we're no longer given tours in the white house. It was a small but powerful thing that any person could see the inside of the house where the Leader of the Free World presides, to walk down the same halls where global policy was being shaped.


Yes, that is a very strong concept. But the tours will return. I don't think anyone believes they are permanently scrapped. Right now the Fox crowd is just using what you posted as political theater. That's why the WH tours have received more attention from conservative media than any other cut (at least it seems that way).
 
2013-03-29 04:45:55 PM  

RickN99: I don't think those kids in California, who have been through years of sex-ed, are uninformed.  They are just teenagers who don't think it'll happen to them.  Telling them AGAIN, for the 400th time, about condoms won't suddenly make them change behavior.


Then just telling them not to have sex wouldn't change that behavior either, so that's not much of a ringing endorsement for the abstinence-only approach.
 
2013-03-29 04:46:23 PM  
And essentially what it does is it talks about how no sex is unsafe unless it causes pregnancy.

Just the slightest bit of citation is needed there...


Assholes.
 
2013-03-29 04:54:52 PM  

Senor_Hat: Fox news obsession aside, I'm actually fairly bummed we're no longer given tours in the white house. It was a small but powerful thing that any person could see the inside of the house where the Leader of the Free World presides, to walk down the same halls where global policy was being shaped.


Dude, it's temporary. Relax...
 
2013-03-29 04:56:29 PM  

Trivia Jockey: I looked at his link, he's lying.  It's making me suspect this is a troll.


Possibly. As I mentioned before we do HIV/STD testing and our HIV numbers are way way up, especially among young people. Part of that is due to the fact that we've focused our testing efforts on high-risk populations, so we're becoming more efficient at finding positives. But I also think the transmission rates really are rising. Young people don't fear AIDS the way my generation did. They think "oh, I'll just take some pills and I'll be fine."

This is all my "CSB" style observation - I don't know if the numbers will bear me out.
 
2013-03-29 05:21:43 PM  
You know what entity I DO NOT want teaching my kids about sex?

The government.

They can learn on the internet like everyone else.
 
2013-03-29 05:23:30 PM  

sigdiamond2000: Dusk-You-n-Me: The gross obsession with White House tours

Yeah, that pretty much nails it:

So, these kids come to town, they can't get the tour they scheduled through their member of Congress, and now they're not so happy with their member of Congress and the sequester. That means that member of Congress now has a problem with some of their constituents - and with the kinds of constituents who are likely to contact their member of Congress when their kid goes to Washington.


My kids had their tour in April cancelled.  I am not so stupid as to think my congressman is to blame.
 
2013-03-29 06:05:48 PM  

OKObserver: How do you "perform" them safely?  Just curious.


Don`t do what my mate did and get a blow job from a girl in a brace. Hers had a loose wire that only dug in when he tried to get his dick OUT of her mouth...
 
2013-03-29 06:25:24 PM  
Whats the US teen pregnancy rates, per states?

Im sure someone will be out with a graph. Hint: Its lower when there is sex-ed.
 
2013-03-29 06:25:58 PM  

GORDON: You know what entity I DO NOT want teaching my kids about sex?

The government.

They can learn on the internet like everyone else.


I see what you did there.
 
2013-03-29 06:48:09 PM  

Biff_Steel: Why is the government in the tour business at all? It's not in the constitution.


Neither is teaching sex ed to 5 year olds like the imbecile Obama wants to do.
 
2013-03-29 07:48:00 PM  
There is a consistent misrepresentation of the sequester by the right-wing echo chamber where it questions why funds are cut for one thing and not another. The Republicans refuse to admit that the nature of the sequester was to cut spending without reference to priorities. A more thoughtful trimming of the budget could have been agreed upon but the GOP controlled congress decided not to do the work. The talking point about White House tours is a smoke screen based on a false pretense and is intended to distract the public from the fact that the GOP controlled congress is not doing its job.
 
2013-03-29 08:11:19 PM  

armoredbulldozer: Biff_Steel: Why is the government in the tour business at all? It's not in the constitution.

Neither is teaching sex ed to 5 year olds like the imbecile Obama wants to do.


Yes, teaching kids how to avoid getting molested is a terrible and imbecile thing to do.
 
2013-03-29 08:44:37 PM  
The headline almost makes it sound as though Bill Clinton is back in the White House, in the Oral, I mean Oval Office.

/maybe he sneaks back in when the Obamas are out-of-town
//because he just loves interns
 
2013-03-30 07:56:06 AM  
I'd just have the kids play dodgeball an extra hour every day.
 
2013-03-30 12:45:47 PM  

Kibbler: I'd just have the kids play dodgeball an extra hour every day.


Yeah and then you'd be the first to biatch when your daughter gets knocked up at 15 because she didn't think she could get pregnant the first time she had sex.
 
2013-03-30 03:05:03 PM  
More dodgeball
 
Displayed 156 of 156 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report