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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

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

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