Sex Education and its role in schools.

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Bells, Feb 12, 2014.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I would like to say from the outset, that I have long been a supporter of comprehensive sex education in schools. However I have come to doubt whether this is effective and whether this should be something that should only be taught and explained in the home. The reason for these doubts is because of just what some kids are being taught under the guise of "sex ed" and the kinds of messages it sends to teenagers who will be curious about sex and their own bodies.

    For example, to me, comprehensive sex education is about teaching teenagers about sex, about safety and protection, about feeling comfortable and uncomfortable and knowing when to say no. Comprehensive should encompass this and abstinence as well as an option. This is the kind of "sex ed" I was taught in school. And I am talking about over 20 years ago now, where I had teachers who were understanding and who quite literally went into the details, from contraceptive pills, to IUD's to making us touch and hold a condom and explaining how it should be put on and how it should always be on if we did have sex and that it is always okay to say no and to wait until we are ready. I never thought about that level of education I was fortunate enough to have received in Victoria (Australia). I had assumed this was standard. Sadly, it was not.

    In the US, for example, there is a push to teach only abstinence when it comes to sex ed. It is from this standpoint that I find myself doubting whether this is acceptable in a school format. While I thank my teachers for being so thorough and so open to curious questions and even the jokes that often abound from teenagers about 'those bits down there', should this standard of education be the norm? Or should abstinence only education?

    Within the context of abstinence only education, there has been some disturbing, if not frightening development and downright misinformation being given to teenagers around the US in public schools.

    For example, meet Shelly Donahue, who has received millions in federal funds for her abstinence only sex ed lectures, given to students across 42 States. This is what Shelly is telling children in her religious themed lectures at public schools:

    "Do you get closer to your God or do you get farther away when you have sex?" (The answer she wanted: "Farther away.") She also said that boys are "wired" to like math, science, and numbers, and girls are wired to be more feelings-oriented. She held up a bag of noodles to indicate that girls "are like spaghetti, with their feelings about parts of their lives entangled," according to the Star-Tribune. (She told the paper: "The outpouring and the positive was so much greater than this one kid's complaint.") In a training video posted by the Denver Westword in 2011, Donahue tells students that if a guy gets sperm anywhere near a girl's vagina, it will turn into a "little Hoover vacuum" and she will become pregnant. (No. Vaginas don't vacuum sperm off the couch.) In another 2011 video, she says, "the boys want to love and respect these girls, and the girls won't let them. The girls are backing up the booty, the girls are being assertive, these girls are emasculating these boys." She continues to conduct sex-ed training programs for teachers on public Title V funds and is holding one this month in Greeley, Colorado.


    As much as we may all laugh heartily at this travesty of an educator, it isn't really a laughing matter when you consider she is teaching this to kids. My favourite was her "fireworks sex" lecture:

    Donahue seeks to entice teens early in her WAIT Training presentation by leveraging the act itself. She tells them as she walks through the WAIT Training talking points that she wants them to have fireworks sex, not "squirt gun" sex. "Fireworks sex" can only happen after your married. Everything before that seems to fall into the "squirt gun" category.


    Ah the jokes that come to mind....

    When our future generations look back and study our generation, will they laugh?

    I am left to wonder at what kind of damage this kind of 'education' will do to children. What kind of psychological expectations will these kids grow up to have?

    Sadly, she is not alone.

    Pam Stenzel tells her female teenage students that sex is worse for them than for boys (yes, because this sets a healthy attitude to sex) and lies to them about STD's.. Jason Evert, yet another 'sex ed' lecturer invited to lecture in public schools (and I would assume, also in private schools) lectures girls about how they should always remain covered and teaches girls that birth control pills cause abortions... Justin Lookado, well, he's in a category that has to be seen to be believed:

    Lookadoo is a spiky-haired Christian lecturer who bills himself as a "professional Speaker who CONNECTS with the audience." He is on the road 200 days a year and on his website, he lists his age as "legal in every state." Lookadoo's presentations can be paid for "under many federal programs, including Safe and Drug Free Schools, Campus Improvement, Title I [and] Title IV." Last week, he caused controversy at Richardson High School in Texas when he gave a presentation for teenagers in which he said: "Girls, the reason it's so hard for you to succeed these days is not because of guys…You're doing it to yourselves," according to the Dallas Morning News. His online dating recommendations have also drawn ire from students and parents: "Men of God are wild…They keep women covered up" and "dateable girls know how to shut up."

    His dating site also states that guys must be manly, as well as these gems:

    For girls

    “Accept your girly-ness.”

    “Be mysterious. Dateable girls know how to shut up.”

    “Let him lead. God made guys as leaders.”

    “Need him. Dateable girls know that guys need to be needed.”

    For guys

    “Dateable guys know they aren’t as sensitive as girls and that’s OK. They know they are stronger, more dangerous, and more adventurous and that’s OK.”

    “Men of God are wild, not domesticated. Dateable guys aren’t tamed.”

    “Keep it covered up. Dateable guys know that porn is bad for the spirit and the mind. They keep women covered up.”


    Is it safe for schools to teach sex ed anymore? If this is the standard they provide, is it safe? Should comprehensive sex education now remain solely in the domain of parents and carers? A lot of parents are not comfortable having 'that talk' with their kids. This isn't strange or unusual. But if this is what is available for kids, what kind of damage is this going to do to future generations if this becomes the norm? Should this be the norm?

    What about the psychological damage and perceptions about sex in general?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Its to dangerous NOT to let schools teach it, if a school teacher is making comments like this at least its out in the open and it can be dealt with if the community has the will. Sex education like all other areas should be determined by the Education department and they are answerable to government. If you put it into the hands of parents 1) how comfortable are parents going to be having these discussions when this is the sort of thing parents (like my brother) think is ok and funny

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And statements like when she turns x she is going to be sent to a nunnery

    Now sure shes 5 so its just a joke now but is that providing a supportive environment to discuss issues like this?

    If most parents manage to screw up there children's views about simple maths (and they do, mum when she was a teacher had to lecture every new lot of parents about that subject) how much more are they going to screw up there children's views on sex and sexuality?

    Oh and lastly, if that's whats coming from the school then what are the parents around that school like? would say worse, not better

    Oh and if you want to see sex ed done absolutely right watch this, go the UK
    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-sex-education-show
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The same argument could be used for teaching gun safety in schools. The students can be shown how guns work and be allowed to practice with weapons. There will be fewer accidents if all the students know about gun safety. But on the down side, this knowledge, by being taught as acceptable, will also cause more students to engage in this activity. The same is true of sex education.

    Sex is natural and therefore does not need to be taught, unless you are dealing with boneheads. The impulse to have sex will create curiosity and the children will seek out ideas and advice in a self reliant way. It is fairly straight forward and does not need special education.

    The real goal of sex education is to create more government dependency via unwed mothers on welfare. It is to support the abortion industry, as well the medical industries who work with STD's. It is all about buying votes with candy since there is no evidence all the negative of sex has decreased over the decades , since sex has been taught in schools. On the contrary, these have gone up with sex education.

    Let us go back to teaching gun safety in all schools since liberals are concerned about guns.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    The U.S. fertility rate fell to another record low in 2012, with 63.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's down slightly from the previous low of 63.2 in 2011.

    It marked the fifth year in a row the U.S. birth rate has declined, and the lowest rate on record since the government started tracking the fertility rate in
    1909. In 2007, the rate was 69.3.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...yYDgAQ&usg=AFQjCNHowys5rxbVAlN1R5T5o9wBQmvjvw

    This is another reason that many businesses want more immigrants to be allowed to work for them today because there's not as many people out there any longer to work for them. IMO
     
  8. Saturnine Pariah Hell is other people Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,072
    Abstinence only education..is at best a clandestinely religious themed method of influence on the youth and at worst a outright fallacious practice for educating children about sex

    http://advocatesforyouth.org/publications/409
    As cited by the Advocates for Youth (AY) in the link above
    The Claim: Research shows that abstinence-only education delays sexual initiation and reduces teen pregnancy.

    The Facts: Abstinence-only education programs are not effective at delaying the initiation of sexual activity or in reducing teen pregnancy.

    "A long-awaited, federally-funded evaluation of four carefully selected abstinence-only education programs, published in April 2007, showed that youth enrolled in the programs were no more likely than those not in the programs to delay sexual initiation, to have fewer sexual partners, or to abstain entirely from sex.[6]
    Numerous state evaluations of federally-funded programs have yielded similar conclusions. A 2004 review by Advocates for Youth of 11 state-based evaluations found that abstinence-only programs showed little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they showed some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. In only one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in youth’s delaying the initiation of sex. None of the programs showed evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth enrolled in the programs. None of the programs showed any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants.[7]

    More specifically, a 2003 Pennsylvania evaluation found that the state-sponsored programs were largely ineffective in delaying sexual onset or promoting skills and attitudes consistent with sexual abstinence.[7] Arizona and Kansas had similar findings of no change in behaviors.[7] A 2004 evaluation from Texas found no significant changes in the percentage of students who pledged not to have sex until marriage. As in two other studies, the Texas analysis revealed that the percentage of students who reported having engaged in sexual intercourse increased for nearly all ages.[7]

    Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation claimed that many studies showed that abstinence programs were effective in reducing youth’s sexual activity. However, in a 2002 review of the ten studies cited by Rector, Douglas Kirby PhD, a widely recognized, highly reputable evaluator of sex education programs for youth, concluded that nine failed to provide credible evidence, consistent with accepted standards of research, that they delayed the initiation of sex or reduced the frequency of sex. One study provided some evidence that the program may have delayed the initiation of sex among youth 15 and younger but not among those 17 and younger.
    [8]"
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    But what happens when the Government and Education Department is paying these people millions to teach kids this?

    Is it any worse than telling girls that their vagina's are like hoover vacuum cleaners?

    I would imagine slut shaming girls about birth control and setting the standard that vagina's are like hoover's and the rest of it is likely to be just as damaging, if not more so.
    How supportive are schools being if this is what they are offering their students by way of sex ed?

    Any more than these Christian fundies are?

    Well going by the article, the parents were not impressed or happy, neither were the students.

    I mean surely kids deserve better than this?
     
  10. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    The problem with Sex Ed in schools is that it is vastly incomplete... it doesn't get down to the true issue of it all:

    Sex... it is something we are wired to enjoy. It stimulates an emotional, physical, and hormonal response designed to make it PLEASURABLE.

    What we NEED to be telling kids is the simple truth: This is NOT a bad thing. SEX is not BAD, it is not WRONG, and it is not IMMORAL. Sex is, however, something not to be given FREELY. It should mean something, even if that "something" is simply two really close friends who feel they can trust one another with that kind of a bond.

    We must also be telling kids how to be SAFE during sex... because lets face it - simply telling kids NOT to do it is not, and has not, proven effective. If they are going to do it, lets at least make sure they are smart about it and know how to safely engage in the activity their body and brain was wired to make them want.
     
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Absolutely they deserve better (see the link I posted in my last post) and I don't think that all parents are useless at this either

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ferre...er-i-hope-you-have-awesome-sex_b_3755185.html

    That really impressed me but for the few people like that there are millions who think things like this

    http://wilk4.com/humor/humorm119.htm

    At BEST you could argue that they think its funny which is sexist, encourages violence and doesn't provide a supportive environment. At worst they think this is acceptable behavior

    These programs shouldn't exist, absolutely but at least when they are programs then the media will be all over them, parents will be all over them, they must match KPIs in studies or lose funding. If its parents teaching the same crap then where is the transparency? Saturnine Pariah posted an evaluation of these "programs" which should get them thrown out, where is the evaluation of what parents teach?

    BTW you do know your initial post made it seem like you were against Sex Ed taught in Australia? Here we don't have the best in the world (like the sex education show in the UK) but organisations like SHine SA are very good
     
  12. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Of course it is. Everyone understands that sex education and gun safety are equivalent and should be approached in the same manner. They both involve things that go "pop". The only difference is that shooting someone with a firearm is more acceptable in the US than shooting someone with your shortarm. Sex and Violence, why, they are almost interchangeable, right Wellwisher?
     
  13. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    To the OP, that's a hard one - no pun intended.

    In a perfect world (nay, in a sane world) the answer would be obvious. Education and transparency is always the right way to go, at least in my book. But with the Yahoos currently in charge of setting policies and curriculum you may have a point. If my kids were younger, would I want them hearing the BS now taught in Sex Ed? No, probably not, ignorance may very well be bliss.

    Of course, the right thing to do is attack the root of the problem, to make an actual change to the system that dis and misinforms our children. We should replace it with real insight and institute an agenda aimed at teaching children to love and respect sex, not fear it and shun it as evil. Easier said than done though, more of an issue to be addressed on the macro scale.

    Day to day, in real life, if my child was attending a school that had any of those OP characters speaking I think I'd pass. Hmmph...
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    That's the thing, you can't really know. I mean you get the notice, pay the fee for these things.

    I'll be honest, I am not a fan of abstinence only sex-ed. I agree with you, I think teaching children that sex is wrong, immoral or evil or what they are feeling and their curiosity is wrong sets a terrible standard and some kids could grow up thinking there is something wrong with them for wanting to have sex or to be curious or to enjoy sex.

    There are tens of thousands of teenagers getting this sort of education in schools in the US. Many of their parents may not even be aware. And some of these kids want to have a baby as a teenager. As the article states, the lack of comprehensive sex education may be a factor in this.

    Asguard makes a valid point. Perhaps I am not comfortable anymore with the thought that my kids may have to learn about sex from a complete stranger and that stranger could have some weird hangups about sex..
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I'm not against teaching all kinds of sports in school, including target shooting and archery. The difference is everyone has genitals, not everyone has a gun. As far as the rest of your statement, it's the usual excrement. Like saying the purpose of gun safety training is to increase accidental shootings.
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Surely everyone knows that the USA is an anomaly among the developed nations. Religion is not only not fading away, but has grown considerably stronger since its nadir in the 1970s.

    This has caused dire consequences in many areas of education, not just sexuality. A few years ago, the state legislature in Kansas made it mandatory for biology textbooks to include creationism as a respectable alternative to evolution.

    The anti-abortion movement, while it includes people from all demographics, is primarily a manifestation of the Religious Right, an awkward coalition of the Catholic Church and the recently-rejuvenated fundamentalist Protestant denominations.

    They are as stupid as any other group of conservatives: they don't understand that by making contraceptives difficult to obtain, they will cause an increase in "problem pregnancies," and a concomitant increase in the demand for abortions.

    One can only wonder about the early life experiences of these people. Most men reach their sexual peak in late adolescence; most women reach it in their mid-30s. Many people of those ages are not married yet. So when they finally do get married, the fireworks will be far behind them.

    Our educational system causes far more damage than that. Today children are allowed as many as five unscheduled absences without an excuse. How will they ever hold down a job?

    I don't know. When I was in high school in the 1950s, the early sex education classes were laughable, since they didn't tell us anything about the actual biology. Since my parents never brought up the subject, I was left with no information about it at all.

    These days kids learn about the physical mechanics of sex by watching porn videos. As for the psychological and social aspects, they learn about those from their older siblings and classmates, just like they do about alcohol and other drugs. And we all know how that works out. Drunken driving has become a major epidemic of tragedies among U.S. teens. Every couple of weeks I read about a car full of kids careening off a road at 90mph/145kph and smashing into a tree.
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Adam Lanza had taken all of the NRA courses in gun safety.

    Huh? What planet do you live on? One of the primary incentives for the movement to bring sex education into the public schools (which was by no means universally popular among parents) was the undeniable spike of teenage pregnancies in the 1950s. The whole point was to teach kids that the old legends were wrong ("you cannot get pregnant your first time" is the one I remember), to teach the boys that girls were worthy of respect, and to teach the girls that they didn't have to use sex as a currency.

    It turns out that sex education only in the schools is not enough--duh? There has to be leadership in the home as well. The communities with the highest rates of teen pregnancy are the ones with the most dysfunctional families: the inner cities where very few children have a father in the home and the mother is so busy working two jobs to pay the rent that she's not there very often. This of course is the result of the government's clandestine use of the "War on Drugs" as a tool for keeping Afro-Americans down. Although the rate of drug use in the black and white communities is virtually identical, a black drug user is eight times as likely to go to prison for it as a white user. So too many black men are in prison, where they can't take care of their children, and when they get out they have prison records so they can't get jobs, and their women don't dare let them into their homes because having a man in the house (even one that can't get a job) will cause them to lose their welfare payments.

    Jim Crow is alive and well. He's just getting more clever about working under the radar. Even our first Afro-American president hasn't figured this out.

    Even though I believe that all guns should be thrown into the ocean and all gun enthusiasts should be thrown in with them, I understand that this will never happen in the U.S.A. Therefore your suggestion is probably a good one. Guns kill more Americans than road accidents, and look at what you have to go through to get a driver's license!

    Only about 15% of gun deaths are deliberate murders or legitimate self-defense against a dangerous human or wild animal. The rest are the result of accident, carelessness, confusion, failing to lock it up, having it stolen or wrenched out of the owner's hands and ending up in the hands of a criminal, or suicide--which can be done in a quick moment of desperation in a house with a gun in the desk drawer.

    Teaching gun safety would probably cause a significant drop in these deaths. Americans with guns kill 100x as many of us as terrorists. Yet we put all of our effort into fighting terrorism, which has destroyed what little stability the Middle East ever had, strengthened the wacky Shiite movement since Iraq is now aligned with Iran and Syria, pissed off every Muslim on the planet, made us fools among our allies, cost us three trillion dollars which we had to borrow from China, turned over our airports to the Homeland Gestapo, and emboldened the NSA to ignore the Constitution.

    Maybe we should be concentrating on the 300,000 Americans who are killed by Americans with guns every ten years, rather than the 3.000 who are killed by terrorists during that same decade.
     
  18. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Ahhh . . . the old, "I need to threaten men and treat my females like possessions to be guarded with guns" cliche.

    Let's perpetuate sexism and stupid-hillbilly-ism further. (not that you're advocating that)

    ~String
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That isn't true, although it's close: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
    You don't have to go through any of that to buy a car.
    1) Suicide is deliberate murder and/or self defense (legitimate or not), also a fair proportion of car "accident" deaths are suicides. 2) The rate of fatality per unit in the US is 15/100k per car, 10/100k per gun - a purchased automobile is about 50% more likely to kill somebody than a purchased gun, a number which is even higher if only legal purchases are counted (the ten per 100k guns counts many illegally purchased guns, whereas there are very few illegally purchased cars). and 3) the number is not relevant to the gun debate - successful self defense, say, is not measured in fatalities, and almost no self defense benefits of gun possession involve anybody getting shot. For example, the low rate of some dangerous crimes in high gun possession regions - such as burglary of occupied dwellings in rural Montana - is reflected in a reduction in firearm deaths, not an increase in them.

    And to bring this around to the thread: the rate of maternal fatality due to pregnancy, in the US, is running around 14/100k - so not counting the stresses of child raising on both parents, or the deaths of the infants etc, pregnancy is much more dangerous than gun possession overall - and given the mostly avoidable circumstances of gun hazard (don't deal drugs, let your kids play with loaded guns, get drunk while handling firearms, etc) that highlight the comparison, any extra risk factors of pregnancy that can be avoided (such as physical immaturity) should be - which requires sex education.

    As far as limiting sex education to the home, that was the standard in the US until fairly recently - with consequences that led the first crusaders for sex education in the schools to their crusade (example: girls committing suicide from shame when they first menstruated, not knowing what was happening). Granted the schools suck at it - the homes are worse.
     
  20. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    There are two issues I have when discussing gun violence in the USA:
    • Gun violence as a major threat is very much a poverty thing.
    • People who only care about gun violence in the rare cases where a bunch of white kids get shot up at school.
    If people genuinely cared about gun violence, we'd simply gain the biggest bang for our buck with providing actual, good education to kids, tearing down the crumbling inner-city structures (homes, commercial buildings) that amplify crime, decriminalize victimless crime-laws (including ending the war on drugs), investing in programs that work in ending the cycle of poverty, building infrastructure in places that need it and providing something on the order of a single-payer system that can take the burden from families who have to find treatment for their ill family members.

    The best way to end gun violence is to do something about poverty in cities. Since gun control legislation is a non-starter in this country (27 states, I believe, have very strict gun-rights measures -- they'd never pass an amendment).

    ~String
     
  21. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Various organizations tabulate the statistics and no two are alike.

    Huh? What state do you live in? Here in Washington DC and the adjacent states, you can't even buy a car unless you have proof of insurance. And you can't buy car insurance if you don't have a license--or extenuating circumstances that will require several very long interviews to verify.

    That's not how the law defines it but okay, I get your point. Nonetheless, if you have to figure out how to slit your wrists underwater, what a lethal dose of your medication is, how to fill your garage with exhaust without killing your children's dog, or (worst of all) how to hang yourself efficiently so you don't gasp for air for 20 minutes and then become a vegetable because your brain is still alive AND not fall so briskly that your family finds you decapitated, it will take some time to pull it all together, and by then you'll have had a chance to cool down and realize that you were overreacting to one of life's little setbacks. But if you have a loaded gun in your desk drawer, all it takes is a breakup e-mail from your girlfriend and before you have time for the shock and hormones to wear off, you're dead.

    It's preposterous that very old people whose bodies and brains are failing and whose estates are being ripped off for $200 a day in order to keep them technically "alive" in an institution are prohibited from committing suicide, while younger people who simply have the same kinds of problems everybody else has can pull a gun out of a drawer and kill themselves before anybody can come running to suggest cooling off.

    I'm not sure what your point is about self-defense that is not "legitimate." That sounds to me like a tragedy that we need to make less common.

    Daimler-Benz sends out a crew to investigate every fatal accident involving one of their cars in Germany, and Volvo does the same thing in Sweden. They have a deal with the government that they are not required to share their findings with the police and insurance companies. They found that a large percentage of fatal single-car accidents are indeed suicides.

    Nonetheless, you're undermining your own case by suggesting that the rate of accidental road deaths might actually be less than the rate of gun deaths if many of them are not actually accidents.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You're ignoring the fact that most gun owners have multiple guns; many, like Adam Lanza's mother, have quite an arsenal. It's unusual for a couple to have more than 3 cars.

    Montana has the third lowest population density in the USA: 7/sqmi. Only Wyoming with 6 and Alaska with 1.2 are lower. The traveling distance between homes tends to reduce burglaries all by itself. In New Jersey (1,200/sqmi) you can hit twenty houses before lunch!

    Shifting a popular product to the black market is guaranteed to increase crime! My parents lived through Prohibition in Al Capone's Chicago and saw their streets become war zones.
    • When only criminals can sell the product, the price goes up because they're taking a high risk AND because they're selfish. The money encourages theft and assassination.
    • When rival dealers and customers can't take their disputes to the courts, they take them to the streets.
    • Cops, judges and other government officials are corrupted by bribery, so laws are not properly enforced and they may actually shield their patrons from arrest and prosecution.
    • Children are recruited as runners because they're harder to catch and prosecute.
    • They also see gangsters becoming much wealthier than their hard-working parents, and decide that going to school and getting a job is a sucker's life.
    • And finally, Americans are not authority-lovers like the British, Germans and Japanese. When something becomes illegal in our country, everybody wants it. My mother said the worst thing about Prohibition is that it got WOMEN going to bars!'
    You'll have to take your guns to Washington and shoot all the Republicans in Congress before that will happen.

    Actually, if it were put to a popular vote, gun control would win by a landslide. It's Congress that's in the pocket of the NRA.

    Unfortunately, people become the most angry about guns after a mass shooting, when in fact mass shootings are a statistical blip and don't usually kill more than 100 people per year. It's the individual gun owners who kill the other 29,900 of us every year. Homicide is one of the top five causes of death for American teenagers!
     
  22. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Bells the main reason I am for taking it out of the hands of parents is because even when done right I can't see it being an informative and enjoyable experience for either party. How would you feel if your children asked you what a blowjob was for example? where as in a school environment if done properly those questions could be asked anonymously and answered in a factual way by people trained in that
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Historically, it was more common for men to explain things to their sons. In some eras they even took them to a prostitute for their first experience.

    But I think it's always been a little more awkward for women to discuss this with their daughters. Not that very many women have wanted to discuss this with me!
     

Share This Page