Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The government shouldn't teach it. That's a parents job, but sadly, epic parent fails DO happen, so I guess the government has to step in sometime or another.

At 2/19/10 04:41 PM, Brick-top wrote: I learned about sex at 8, from a very interesting video about how to jizz on someone's chest. Then I was taught it at school a while later when I was 11 I think, then 12, then 13, then 14, then 15, then 16 and in a college course.

But I do have one objection. When they get (what is essentially) a dildo out, make you put on beer goggles and tell you to put the condom on the dildo, everyone was walking from one side of the room to the other. I'm sorry, but unless knobs have a detachable feature I was unaware of, this "Don't drink and have sex" statement is poorly executed.

well aren't you the horn dog well i don't think any of that makes sense but the love doctor is here i'll forget you even had such a twisted fucked up mind!

At 2/20/10 05:14 PM, Memorize wrote: Saying that you can't rely on the parents to do it is nothing but an excuse to allow a Government with your line of control to teach children what YOU want.

Government control FTW!

The problem here is that sex education is a public health issue, and there are problems associated with allowing parents to teach (or more importantly, fail to teach) their kids whatever they want about sex.

Do you honestly believe that important barrier methods such as condoms would enjoy the same popularity they do today without public sex education?

At 2/23/10 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote:

Do you honestly believe that important barrier methods such as condoms would enjoy the same popularity they do today without public sex education?

Do you honestly believe that it's only coincidental that US school education has only been going down the gutter since the Government's involvement?

At 2/23/10 02:25 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/23/10 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote:

Do you honestly believe that important barrier methods such as condoms would enjoy the same popularity they do today without public sex education?

Do you honestly believe that it's only coincidental that US school education has only been going down the gutter since the Government's involvement?

You know, this reminds of when the Teacher's Union in California demanded that the state get rid of Home Schooling.

Why? Because, they argued, when people are home school'd, they don't get the social interaction like they would at a public/private school (as if none of them had any friends outside the house).

The funny part was that the home school'd kids got better grades and a higher GPA. Which means the only reason why the Teacher's Union complained was to simply get more kinds into their classrooms.

The same thing with you supporting Government forced sex education. You're not doing it to educate people, you're doing it to brainwash them.

WELL IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO TEACH THEM BEFOR ITS TO LATE BUT THEN THEY MAY GET CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT SEX IS THEN IT IS TOO LATE SO TO TELL THEM OR NOT TO OR NOTTO TELLTHEM........
THOUGH ASK THIS

At 2/23/10 02:29 PM, Memorize wrote: [...] You're not doing it to educate people, you're doing it to brainwash them.

Brainwashing kids to do exactly what?

HAHAHA! 10 if definitely to young.

At 2/23/10 03:29 PM, fli wrote:

At 2/23/10 02:29 PM, Memorize wrote: [...] You're not doing it to educate people, you're doing it to brainwash them.

Brainwashing kids to do exactly what?

What would you call it if the Government were to mandate that all public schools give abstinence-only sex ed.?

You people never think, do you?

Let's just say you believe it's a good idea to have the Government (a source of bright light capable of wonderful, magnificant things without any corruption...) mandate sex ed policy at school because a certain policy would be beneficial.

Did you ever to stop to think that if certain politicians you didn't like got into office that they could change the policy to something you didn't like?

And why would they be able to do that? Because you sat there, stupidly thinking that giving the Government the authority to do that was a good idea.

Can't we just leave kids to learn about sex VIA the internet like in the good 'ol days?
I remember I learned about masturbation from a guy on Runescape going around with an auto typer saying "Rub your dick, it feels good!" and had like 100 kids following him.
Now that's the way it should be!

And I was one of those kids, by the way.

I have to agree with Memorize. If you're going to forge a ring of power, don't assume that it will always fall into the hands of some Gandalf the Grey, policy matters aside, the odds that your newly elected dictator is going to enact policies that YOU like all of the time are very low.

At 2/23/10 06:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I have to agree with Memorize. If you're going to forge a ring of power, don't assume that it will always fall into the hands of some Gandalf the Grey, policy matters aside, the odds that your newly elected dictator is going to enact policies that YOU like all of the time are very low.

Exactly. If you give complete power to someone there is bound to be a time where you won't like something that they do.

At 2/23/10 05:02 PM, Memorize wrote:

Brainwashing kids to do exactly what?

What would you call it if the Government were to mandate that all public schools give abstinence-only sex ed.?

You people never think, do you?

Not brainwashed, that's for sure.
Misguided is the immediate word (and exactly the most appropriate word too.)

Okay, the question still remains.
Brainwashed to think what?

Take time to find the words.

At 2/23/10 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote: The problem here is that sex education is a public health issue,

Yeah, so?

It's not like unsafe sex practises put at risk innocent members of the public.
You have to consent to risking catching getting an infection from having unprotected sex with someone etc

I mean, sure, you could say that if they don't know the risks then they'll engage in dangerous behaviour, by why is this line of thinking reserved for only sex? Why doesn't the state teach kids about all risky areas of life.

At 2/23/10 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote:

Do you honestly believe that important barrier methods such as condoms would enjoy the same popularity they do today without public sex education?

It depends upon who is in power, which is what is so dangerous about having a monopoly on education. As side from the fact that it makes only the brightest of children into dependent, obedient boot lickers, if some maniac born again movement were to seize the ring of power the authoritative-left have worked so diligently to forge.

I'm not against public education teaching sex-ed per-say. And if i had to chose between a government education camp that taught condom use or one that taught abstinence only, ceteris paribus i would go with the former. I am against public education in general because of it's ability to inculcate an entire generation of people with the same ideas, which may or may not be bad but they almost always run to the benefit of those with the most power.

I think you underestimate the extent to which social progressivism is a bottom up and not a top-down phenomena.

At 2/23/10 11:27 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It's not like unsafe sex practises put at risk innocent members of the public.

That is a ridiculously naive statement, and you should know better.

At 2/23/10 11:27 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

I mean, sure, you could say that if they don't know the risks then they'll engage in dangerous behaviour, by why is this line of thinking reserved for only sex? Why doesn't the state teach kids about all risky areas of life.

I don't know how it is in the US, but over here in Sweden they do teach kids about a lot of the risky areas of life. For example, they teach basic traffic sense at kindergarten and upwards, do the "don't talk to strangers"-stuff at maybe age 6-8, tell you that you shouldn't hug people when you have the flu, tell you that smoking isn't good for you and so on. While they do some things wrong (their anti-drug information is often awfully inaccurate), they actually tell kids about a lot of the risky areas of that age.

I'm a canadian, and sex ed began for me at the age of 5, from my parents. School-wise it started in grade 2.

I'm 17, and no worse off from it. Although I can see some of my views pissing off the more conservative types... but that's not necessarily a bad thing from my perspective.

At 2/23/10 05:02 PM, Memorize wrote: What would you call it if the Government were to mandate that all public schools give abstinence-only sex ed.?

A shitty idea.

You people never think, do you?

No see, we think that abstinence-only education is bad, and we also think that a complete lack of education is a bad idea.

Whether or not we can successfully lobby for honest and informative sex education is a different issue, but since this topic is about a statement from Planned Parenthood, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they're not promoting abstinence-only.

Did you ever to stop to think that if certain politicians you didn't like got into office that they could change the policy to something you didn't like?

Did you ever stop to think that they could always do that anyway no matter what?

And why would they be able to do that? Because you sat there, stupidly thinking that giving the Government the authority to do that was a good idea.

It's not like we're talking about banning parents from telling their kids stuff, Mez. The point is that historically speaking, we see some parents who give their kids an open and accurate education about sex, and a whole bunch who don't. Even if government policy is shitty, the responsible ones will still educate their kids, but if government policy is good, then you get a lot more coverage.

At 2/23/10 11:27 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 2/23/10 09:22 AM, Elfer wrote: The problem here is that sex education is a public health issue,

Yeah, so?

It's not like unsafe sex practises put at risk innocent members of the public.
You have to consent to risking catching getting an infection from having unprotected sex with someone etc

That's true, but without something to dispel misinformation, it's going to be out there. The rampant spread of AIDS and other STDs was largely due to a lack of awareness and a lack of people willing to be tested or understanding the importance of it. Without education, people lack the information they need to make informed decisions.

I mean, sure, you could say that if they don't know the risks then they'll engage in dangerous behaviour, by why is this line of thinking reserved for only sex? Why doesn't the state teach kids about all risky areas of life.

They do teach kids about a lot of risky areas of life. When I was in my first year of high school, they even gave everyone a lesson about food preparation safety (although many of my classmates somehow didn't understand the concept, and were concerned about cross-contamination between mushrooms and peppers).

You can also thank government initiative/funding for your knowledge (and the existence) of other things, like the proper way to place a very drunk person on their side to prevent asphyxiation, or hazardous material symbols.

Of course there's areas where we're lacking adequate education, very much so with drugs and alcohol, for example, but there's a lot more areas than sex where education is applied but simply taken for granted.

At 2/25/10 09:39 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 2/23/10 05:02 PM, Memorize wrote: What would you call it if the Government were to mandate that all public schools give abstinence-only sex ed.?

A shitty idea.

There, you just made my case.

At 2/25/10 03:35 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/25/10 09:39 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 2/23/10 05:02 PM, Memorize wrote: What would you call it if the Government were to mandate that all public schools give abstinence-only sex ed.?

A shitty idea.

There, you just made my case.

Except that it is a shitty idea: http://bantha.org/~jerboa/CV-Rosenbaum-s ep15.pdf

People who participate generally have fewer partners, but still have sex at the same rates at the same age regardless of pledges or promises. The larger issue though is that they then have unprotected sex when they have sex which actually puts them at greater risk of getting diseases or causing an unwanted pregnancy.

At 2/25/10 03:56 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 2/25/10 03:35 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/25/10 09:39 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 2/23/10 05:02 PM, Memorize wrote: What would you call it if the Government were to mandate that all public schools give abstinence-only sex ed.?

A shitty idea.

There, you just made my case.

Except that it is a shitty idea: http://bantha.org/~jerboa/CV-Rosenbaum-s ep15.pdf

Oops, thats not the study, thats the author, I've got to go find the study...

Here's a study: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publicati ons/pdfs/impactabstinence.pdf

They find abstinence education does absolutely nothing to prevent people from having sex.

At 2/25/10 03:35 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 2/25/10 09:39 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 2/23/10 05:02 PM, Memorize wrote: What would you call it if the Government were to mandate that all public schools give abstinence-only sex ed.?

A shitty idea.

There, you just made my case.

Not really, since I'm arguing in favour of a reasonable sex ed policy instead of a stupid one. Abstinence only education doesn't work, but it doesn't make things worse than doing nothing.

At 2/25/10 03:56 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Except that it is a shitty idea: http://bantha.org/~jerboa/CV-Rosenbaum-s ep15.pdf

I never once said it wasn't a shitty idea.

I just think it's funny that you and Elfer are so retarded to believe it's smart to have the Government mandate it, which even if they constitutionally could do that (which they can't), you would still support it even though new politicians can come in and change it.

Not once did any of you tell me why this is to be a school's responsibility.

Nor have either of you addressed the hypocrisy mentioned in Smiley's thread about schools teaching kids on how to properly use a gun at a very young age (which I would bet anything that 90% of the people who support sex ed, would obviously be against).

You guys call yourselves socially liberal, yet you people sure as hell don't fucking live up to it.

But I suppose next, you're going to tell me that the Patriot Act was a good idea too, right?

At 2/25/10 04:42 PM, Elfer wrote:

Not really, since I'm arguing in favour of a reasonable sex ed policy instead of a stupid one. Abstinence only education doesn't work, but it doesn't make things worse than doing nothing.

haha, no.

You're just too fucking stupid to see long term.

Not surprising.

You haven't even responded to Smilez' thread on how gun use falls into the very same category about how to be properly used, and for schools to teach it.

Gum on the other hand did one of his classic bullshit excuses of "this doesn't apply" while not even explaning why it doesn't.

Consistancy would be peachy-keen.

Me, I like teaching kids more about anything and everything so if they screw up after they know the facts then we don't have to feel bad for the stupid fuckers.
As for some thread about kids and guns : Sure, tell them where the safety is, show them what it does, remind them that real people don't respawn. Don't forget to mention that banging on bullets with a hammer is a BAD idea.

At 2/25/10 05:21 PM, Memorize wrote: haha, no.

You're just too fucking stupid to see long term.

Not surprising.

All this thread is about is whether or not sex ed should begin at a young age and/or be in the public school system in the first place. I say "yes, probably" because at worst it's a neutral outcome on public health and at best it's positive. Yes abstinence-only education is a waste of resources, but at least it isn't actively lowering awareness levels compared to no education.

The thing you really, really seem to be missing here is that the presence of government-sponsored sex education does not preclude education at home if the parents feel that the

You haven't even responded to Smilez' thread on how gun use falls into the very same category about how to be properly used, and for schools to teach it.

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to teaching proper gun use for say, handguns and rifles in a school setting. That said, I do think sex ed is a higher priority since a larger proportion of the population engages in recreational sex than recreational shooting.

Thank you for assuming things about my opinions based on absolutely nothing though.

At 2/25/10 11:22 PM, Elfer wrote:

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to teaching proper gun use for say, handguns and rifles in a school setting.

But would you support giving the Government the ability to force school's to do these?