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 29
    More: Dumbass, Fox News, White House, control towers, birth controls, sex education, Planned Parenthood  
•       •       •

2879 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-29 10:28:10 AM  
6 votes:
2013-03-29 12:04:25 PM  
4 votes:
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 04:19:39 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:05:44 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:35:54 AM  
3 votes:

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 04:56:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:17:35 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:17:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:07:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:00:26 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:11:13 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:06:42 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:54:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:41:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:35:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:24:49 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:07:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:04:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:19:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:22:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:19:13 AM  
1 votes:

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


You probably could just die and noone would care.
2013-03-29 11:06:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:00:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:00:25 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:56:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:52:10 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:49:53 AM  
1 votes:
15 year old political joke day today?
2013-03-29 10:49:36 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:48:37 AM  
1 votes:
Why is the government in the tour business at all? It's not in the constitution.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 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