Next time please add the text for those who cannot follow links through because of work/whatever reason, thanks
(CNN)The news in this year's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report on sexually transmitted diseases is not good.
The number of cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea in the United States increased between 2013 and 2014, after being on the decline for several years. Cases of syphilis, which have been on the rise for the last decade, shot up in 2014.
Chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis are the three most common STDs in the United States that are also notifiable, meaning health departments are required to report new cases to the CDC. (HIV and shigella are also notifiable STDs.)
Chlamydia is the most common and can damage a woman's reproductive system. The report found that in 2014 there were more than 1.4 million cases of chlamydia, or about 456 for every 100,000 people. There are about 350,000 cases (or 111 for every 100,000 people) of gonorrhea, which causes infections. And there are nearly 20,000 cases (six for every 100,000 people) of syphilis, which if left untreated can lead to serious complications, including blindness.
All three are curable with medication and you can decrease your chances of getting them by practicing safe sex. These numbers represent an increase in chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis cases of 2.8%, 5.1% and 15.1%, respectively, between 2013 and 2014.
"This is a bare minimum of the number of infections occurring in the U.S.," said Dr. Gail Bolan, director of CDC's Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, and lead author of the report, which was released on Tuesday.
There could be many cases that went undiagnosed because the infections did not cause symptoms, which is typical of chlamydia and gonorrhea, and because people did not have access to health care or their providers did not test them, Bolan said.
Chlamydia has been steadily rising since 1994, when it became a notifiable disease. But the numbers had started to wane in 2011, until the new report, which is the first in several years to see a rebound in chlamydia cases.
However, this rebound for chlamydia might not actually be a bad thing. It is probably largely due to the fact that more people are getting tested, both because providers continue to be more aware of testing since the disease became notifiable and because better tests have been developed, Bolan said.
Unlike with chlamydia, the rise in gonorrhea and syphilis cases in 2014 is probably at least partly due to a true increase in the number of infections, which is concerning, especially for men, Bolan said.
Teen sex rate lowest since the 1980s
The rate of gonorrhea has been up and down since 1941, shortly after it became a notifiable disease, but the trajectory has been mostly upward since 2009, including 2014. Most of the rise has been in men. Surveillance data from certain parts of the country suggest that heterosexual men account for about 50% of the increase and men who have sex with men about 25%, Bolan said.
There has also been a return of syphilis since the early 2000s, after it was largely on the decline since 1941. Although the increase over the last 15 years has mostly been driven by men who have sex with men, the new report found that rates had increased among women by 23%, and among heterosexual men by 14%, between 2013 and 2014.
"Syphilis is a continuing trend among men who have sex with men, and it's really a crisis in this group," said Hayley Mark, associate professor of community-public health at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing. "One thing that is very new in this report is the increase in syphilis among women," she added. Women who are pregnant can pass syphilis onto their babies. It is known as congenital syphilis, which can be deadly if not treated.
What is safe sex for someone with HIV?
Part of the reason for the increase in gonorrhea and syphilis could be that men have condom burnout, or are less likely to wear condoms because infections such as HIV are more treatable and do not seem as scary, Mark said.
"There is no clear single answer" to explain the rise in gonorrhea and syphilis, particularly among men, Bolan said.
Clinics that provided STD testing and treatment across the United States have had to close or shorten their hours, Bolan said. Although it is unclear the full extent of these closures. The CDC does not track access to health care services the same way it tracks diseases; reports suggest many states have cut funding for STD programs, at least since the 2008 recession.
These cutbacks could affect those with poor access to health care, and particularly men who have sex with men. "We know there is still a lot of homophobia and stigma toward our gay communities in the U.S., and a lot of people may prefer to see a provider ... that provides culturally sensitive services."
The increases in chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis detailed in the CDC report are "a bit frustrating as a provider," said Dr. Laura Elizabeth Riley, director of obstetrics and gynecology infectious disease at Massachusetts General Hospital. "These are things that are treatable but also avoidable," she said.
Detecting STIs: Teens believe a color-changing condom is the answer
Patients might not be concerned enough about these diseases, Riley said. "I think the ramifications of having these diseases is wider ranging than people really appreciate," she said.
Chlamydia can be especially devastating for young people, because it could lead to scarring in their reproductive tissue that eventually makes them infertile, Riley said.
The report found that the highest proportion of chlamydia and gonorrhea cases were in people between 15 and 29 years of age. Most syphilis cases were in people 20 to 29 years old.
The finding that rates of these STDs were increasing among men in particular should remind women to do everything they can to protect themselves and use a condom. "And even if you do that, there are still a million reasons why you should be screened. It's not expensive and it could save you as a woman all the heartache associated with downstream effects, such as infertility and poor pregnancy outcomes," Riley said.
The CDC report made several recommendations, including for women younger than 25 who are sexually active, and women of all ages who have new or multiple sex partners, to get screened annually for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Men who have sex with men should ask their doctor for chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis and HIV tests at least once a year.
It's like the ultimate catch 22. This chick is so cute, and she's funny... But by the time the test gets back, neither of us will be inebriated anymore!
hotsauceman1 wrote: If pregnancy is considered a disease, Kronk might have skewed the results.
But no, this is why RAs hand out free condoms. In my opinion, high schools should start doing that.
Wouldn't have helped at my high school. One of the girls got pregnant because the dude in question said he didn't need to wear a condom because "God would keep her from getting pregnant".
I am not making this up. You can not fix stupid, and if you can't afford a pack of condoms, you probably can't afford to take a girl out on a date anyway. Buy some goddamned condoms. We have too many fething people on this planet already.
djones520 wrote: Are you disagreeing with the notion that an increase in casual sex is directly tied to an increase in STD's?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Casual sex alone isn't that dangerous, if you make use of the available options for reducing the risk. The real danger is when people are having casual sex without using those options, and abstinence-only "education" is a huge part of that. So if you want to keep STD rates down the place you need to be focusing is teaching people to have sex as safely as possible.
djones520 wrote: Are you disagreeing with the notion that an increase in casual sex is directly tied to an increase in STD's?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Casual sex alone isn't that dangerous, if you make use of the available options for reducing the risk. The real danger is when people are having casual sex without using those options, and abstinence-only "education" is a huge part of that. So if you want to keep STD rates down the place you need to be focusing is teaching people to have sex as safely as possible.
LethalShade wrote: Was just saying that seeking to have protected casual sex instead of going stupid without even a condom sounds like common sense to me.
Every time you think you've made something idiot proof, God goes and builds a better idiot.
Nope, our sexual education is... Lacking, to say the least, and most figure it out by themselves. At least it was the case for me and most people I know. Most of the time, parents are the only ones informing about it.
(Common sense and basic intelligence can be a lifesaver )
Nope, our sexual education is... Lacking, to say the least, and most figure it out by themselves. At least it was the case for me and most people I know. Most of the time, parents are the only ones informing about it.
(Common sense and basic intelligence can be a lifesaver )
For the first part, I guess it depends on which version of French you speak. I've had room mates from France tell me people from Quebec sound like Daffy Duck in the way their French sounds!
For the second part, I am used to hearing how much more sophisticated Europeons are in their approach to sex and the education of it to their children than we are in the U.S., that I was honestly surprised at your revelation.
I note a strong correlation between skinny jeans and low sex rates.
Most syphilis cases were in people 20 to 29 years old.
Fair point, but that only shows that most syphilis cases were in people 20 to 29 years old.
That still doesn't indicate that there is an increase in casual sex. There could be all kinds of factors beyond that is causing it. Yes, an increase in casual sex COULD explain it. So could an increase in people lying about it to partners, not being able to afford treatment, or not having enough education on the diseases to recognize that you have one. There's probably more possibilities than those that I haven't considered.
djones520 wrote: Are you disagreeing with the notion that an increase in casual sex is directly tied to an increase in STD's?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Casual sex alone isn't that dangerous, if you make use of the available options for reducing the risk. The real danger is when people are having casual sex without using those options, and abstinence-only "education" is a huge part of that. So if you want to keep STD rates down the place you need to be focusing is teaching people to have sex as safely as possible.
Well... Isn't it common sense ?
Not in the US, where our schools are so riddled with religious-based ignorance that the only sex ed a lot of students get is based on the idea that they won't have sex, at all, ever, until they are married.
djones520 wrote: Are you disagreeing with the notion that an increase in casual sex is directly tied to an increase in STD's?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Casual sex alone isn't that dangerous, if you make use of the available options for reducing the risk. The real danger is when people are having casual sex without using those options, and abstinence-only "education" is a huge part of that. So if you want to keep STD rates down the place you need to be focusing is teaching people to have sex as safely as possible.
Well... Isn't it common sense ?
Not in the US, where our schools are so riddled with religious-based ignorance that the only sex ed a lot of students get is based on the idea that they won't have sex, at all, ever, until they are married.
Some reading on sexual education legislation across the country this year. Almost all of it requires sexual education to be scientifically/medically sound.
Yes, but realize that those are brand-new regulations and guidelines, and will still run into the face of local, district and state education budgets.
One of the reasons our education system is in such a sorry state is because schools get the best deal on textbooks based on what Texas is buying... and the textbooks Texas is buying are horrifically inaccurate, and often written with a religiously-revisionist bias to them.
This is how Moses and Abraham are now getting listed as "Founding Fathers" of the country and such, as an example. The texts on sex ed are in a similar, dismal state. Fortunately, several communities have started a backlash against this (really, no one likes living in a country filled with stupid people). Wasn't too long ago that a similar measure was on the ballot here in Seattle... but, problem is, no one wants to pay for it.
When you can get enough books from Texas for X-dollars to supply every student in your system, versus getting them from Somewhere Else for X-times-five-dollars, and even then only cover 75% of your students... well, budgetary realities generally go with Option A.
The school I attend has ~6 year old textbooks in all of the classrooms. Last year, my sex ed (or Reproductive Health and Safety because NC) basically covered the following. The entire course was one hour long. (Warning: Abstinence bs)
•STDs exist. Most of them incurable and untreatable and will ruin your life. (No information on transmission rates or transmission type)
•Contraceptives exist. (No information on where to get them, no information on how to use them, just failure rates and that's all. Abortion was not discussed or brought up in any way.)
And that's basically it. My sex ed was basically "don't have sex, you'll get herpegonorreyphilegnency and die!" There was also a lot of stuff about marriage and some stuff about monogamy being the only way of life. Surprisingly, there was info on how to recognize an abusive relationship, but nothing on building relationships.
Here's what wasn't taught.
•Consent.
•What actually happens during sex (this is a direct quote from my 8th grade health teacher(Currently Sophomore in HS)) "I'm not allowed to tell you, but it involves something going into something else."
•Building healthy relationships.
•Anything else at all.
Consent and what happens during sex not being taught is definitely a big fething deal. I bet at least one person came out of that class not knowing that mutual consent was necessary.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If pregnancy is considered a disease, Kronk might have skewed the results.
But no, this is why RAs hand out free condoms. In my opinion, high schools should start doing that.
I spent a few months as an exchange student in the 80s in Long Beach, California. The High School I attended had condom vending machines in the boys AND girl's toilets, and one of the lowest student pregnancy rates in the country (also low STD rates). The first in Cali to have done so, I believe, too.
Somehow ignorance of sex-ed became a "virtue" over knowledge - like somehow KNOWING what not to do automatically outed you as an "immoral wretch" or something.
Verviedi wrote: The school I attend has ~6 year old textbooks in all of the classrooms. Last year, my sex ed (or Reproductive Health and Safety because NC) basically covered the following. The entire course was one hour long. (Warning: Abstinence bs)
•STDs exist. Most of them incurable and untreatable and will ruin your life. (No information on transmission rates or transmission type)
•Contraceptives exist. (No information on where to get them, no information on how to use them, just failure rates and that's all. Abortion was not discussed or brought up in any way.)
And that's basically it. My sex ed was basically "don't have sex, you'll get herpegonorreyphilegnency and die!" There was also a lot of stuff about marriage and some stuff about monogamy being the only way of life. Surprisingly, there was info on how to recognize an abusive relationship, but nothing on building relationships.
Here's what wasn't taught.
•Consent.
•What actually happens during sex (this is a direct quote from my 8th grade health teacher(Currently Sophomore in HS)) "I'm not allowed to tell you, but it involves something going into something else."
•Building healthy relationships.
•Anything else at all.
Consent and what happens during sex not being taught is definitely a big fething deal. I bet at least one person came out of that class not knowing that mutual consent was necessary.
I actually got pretty good sex ed in school (go Army ?). We covered the mechanics, the biology, STDs and stuff, and we did actually acknowledge that condoms and birth control exist. Probably the one thing my school actually did right in those years.
Consent and what happens during sex not being taught is definitely a big fething deal. I bet at least one person came out of that class not knowing that mutual consent was necessary.
What did I just read? Are you saying that there were people in your class willing to hump-jump the first female in sight...and you didn't immediately call the police informing them about such people?
djones520 wrote: Are you disagreeing with the notion that an increase in casual sex is directly tied to an increase in STD's?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Casual sex alone isn't that dangerous, if you make use of the available options for reducing the risk. The real danger is when people are having casual sex without using those options, and abstinence-only "education" is a huge part of that. So if you want to keep STD rates down the place you need to be focusing is teaching people to have sex as safely as possible.
Well... Isn't it common sense ?
Not in the US, where our schools are so riddled with religious-based ignorance that the only sex ed a lot of students get is based on the idea that they won't have sex, at all, ever, until they are married.
Some reading on sexual education legislation across the country this year. Almost all of it requires sexual education to be scientifically/medically sound.
Well that isn't true everywhere. Also, what they're talking about is abstinence-only. That is classrooms where they teach "The only way to have a 100% chance of not getting pregnant or getting and STD is to not have sex". That is a true statement. It is a scientifically and medically sound statement. It is also a useless statement, especially in isolation. "Don't you be having any of that sex of now, kiddos" teaches zero about what to do when you've actually decided to have sex because you're 16 and you're hornier than you'll ever be for the rest of your entire life.
That's what a lot of these schools teach: "Don't have sex" and nothing else, that's one and only thing they teach on the matter. Along with a lot of scare material on just how bad pregnancy and STDs are.
"Medically Sound" is not the same as"Useful" nor is it mutually exclusive with leaving kids ignorant, nor is it exclusive with the motivation for the policies stemming from religiously/conservative/"Family Values" inspired pearl-clutching. Also such standards aren't even universal.
Oh god. That sock demonstration. That guy deserves an award for creativity and hilariousness.
That No Screwing around video is... bizarre to watch. I really want to see the whole thing. The "run away from that girl" bit is really really bizarre. What does the video tell girls? Do they do the "look to your left. Now to your right. Both of those men will rape you" line? Granted every one of those videos was wacky, and more than a few disgusting. Not John's though. His was pure win.
But yeah. Glad I didn't have to deal with any of that crap. My bs-o-meter would have had my head doing a live action reenactment of Scanners.
Consent and what happens during sex not being taught is definitely a big fething deal. I bet at least one person came out of that class not knowing that mutual consent was necessary.
What did I just read? Are you saying that there were people in your class willing to hump-jump the first female in sight...and you didn't immediately call the police informing them about such people?
Hindsight's a bitch. Also probably due to the fact that the incident occured before I realised that conservatism was not the ideology for me, so I was part of the problem at the time (and a bigoted asshat who alienated friends).
Consent and what happens during sex not being taught is definitely a big fething deal. I bet at least one person came out of that class not knowing that mutual consent was necessary.
What did I just read? Are you saying that there were people in your class willing to hump-jump the first female in sight...and you didn't immediately call the police informing them about such people?
Hindsight's a bitch. Also probably due to the fact that the incident occured before I realised that conservatism was not the ideology for me, so I was part of the problem at the time (and a bigoted asshat who alienated friends).
I'm sorry... did you just equate being conservative to being a rapist?
I hope that anyone with STDs is disclosing it on their affirmative consent forms prior to engaging in coitus, otherwise concealing a material fact could pose some problems
BlaxicanX wrote: Ironically, I learned more about algebra in his class than I did in any of the following three. The only math class I ever got an "A" in.
Gay algebra is like regular algebra, but with more non-discriminating formulas... if you catch my meaning.
And all the variables are living in the sine function...
Chongara wrote: That is classrooms where they teach "The only way to have a 100% chance of not getting pregnant or getting and STD is to not have sex". That is a true statement. It is a scientifically and medically sound statement.
Incorrect on all three counts about both STD's and pregnancy I'm afraid.
Chongara wrote: That is classrooms where they teach "The only way to have a 100% chance of not getting pregnant or getting and STD is to not have sex". That is a true statement. It is a scientifically and medically sound statement.
Incorrect on all three counts about both STD's and pregnancy I'm afraid.
Well it is true. The problem is it ignore the basic prinicble. That people like to bone.
Chongara wrote: That is classrooms where they teach "The only way to have a 100% chance of not getting pregnant or getting and STD is to not have sex". That is a true statement. It is a scientifically and medically sound statement.
Incorrect on all three counts about both STD's and pregnancy I'm afraid.
Well it is true. The problem is it ignore the basic prinicble. That people like to bone.
Well, it is incorrect when it comes to infections commonly which commonly fall under the STD banner.
You can contract herpes by just kissing someone who is having a flare up, for example. Then there's sharing needles etc.
Chongara wrote: That is classrooms where they teach "The only way to have a 100% chance of not getting pregnant or getting and STD is to not have sex". That is a true statement. It is a scientifically and medically sound statement.
Incorrect on all three counts about both STD's and pregnancy I'm afraid.
Well it is true. The problem is it ignore the basic prinicble. That people like to bone.
Well, it is incorrect when it comes to infections commonly which commonly fall under the STD banner.
You can contract herpes by just kissing someone who is having a flare up, for example. Then there's sharing needles etc.
Or being bitten. Which is a good way to end up with hepatitis. Which is why babies need the hepatitis jab, in case a nazi with hepatitis bites them.....
It's actually transmitted by blood, so I'm being serious.
Chongara wrote: That is classrooms where they teach "The only way to have a 100% chance of not getting pregnant or getting and STD is to not have sex". That is a true statement. It is a scientifically and medically sound statement.
Incorrect on all three counts about both STD's and pregnancy I'm afraid.
Well I suppose a hysterectomy would also fall under "100% chance of not getting pregnant", as would having homosexual sex and being generally sterile otherwise.
However I think there is obviously something of an implied caveat that risk of pregnancy is really only relevant to folks engaging in the kind of sex that could result in pregnancy in the first place. It's plainly silly to call out two dudes boning as having no chance of resulting in pregnancy, because obviously it's an irrelevant non-concern to them in the first place. That there other vectors for things that can be called STDs is also sort of missing the point, again the implied statement here is "and getting a disease via sexual transmission". The fact that there are risks associated with having sex: Pregnancy, sexual transmission of infections is true. The statement that not having sex will preclude you from getting pregnant or having diseases sexually transmitted to you is also true. The statement that other methods of mitigating these risks have non-zero failure rates is also true.
Obviously I'm not advocating for abstinence-only education but let's not get caught up in coming up with scenarios where folks are going to get knocked up without taking their pants off.
And again, one does not have to have intercourse to get pregnant or catch an STD. Non-penatrive sexual acts, lack of awareness of safe sexual acts (in terms of preventing pregnancy and what "sex" actually is... such as some people believing that if you do it standing up, or wash straight afterwards, etc it is not actually sex (you really can't make this stuff up...)).
Abstinance in the eye of the beholder and all that...
Besides, I'm sure there is at least one quite well known urban myth of a lady who got pregnant without having sex
The point being that abstinance does not protect you, even from the "sexually" part of STD. Witholding information on sex, safe sex, and relationships and just saying "don't have sex and loom at all these diseases!" is lretty much the worst way to keep young people safe.
Abstinace education should be 2 minutes tops before actually getting on to the useful and demonstratably safer sexual education material...
Grey Templar wrote: All methods need to be taught, including abstinence as an option(and the only 100% safe option).
Here's my question. Why? Why even mention the word Abstinence at all? Sex isn't a bad thing. it's part of life and human relationships and most people want to have it eventually, right? Talking about it by focusing on the negatives, which is all abstinence education really is, is counter productive and potentially damaging. It's just a subtle form of fear mongering on the part of adults who have some irrational fear that their kids will do something. Do we have classes telling kids how they shouldn't go outside, because bad stuff can happen out there?
If we're actually teaching teens what sex is, consent, what contraceptives do, the risks of STDs, it should go without saying that not having sex results in no pregnancy and near no STD transmission (to be fair, we should mention in classes that some STDs can be transferred by other means than sex acts). Unless we're teaching some special ed kids, why bother? I know we expect little of teenagers but I don't think they're so stupid they can't figure that effects won't happen if the cause never occurs.
I think that has more to do with people incorrectly defining Abstinence and/or the kiddos being total idiots than it does with Abstinence being bad.
Abstinence would be total refrain from any sexual act with another person, until you are both willing to commit to each other, and should be taught as such.
Naturally it won't require as much time to teach, but it absolutely must be taught as the information about it is no less vital.
LordofHats wrote: I actually got pretty good sex ed in school (go Army ?). We covered the mechanics, the biology, STDs and stuff, and we did actually acknowledge that condoms and birth control exist. Probably the one thing my school actually did right in those years.
Funny, growing up in the town I did, I went to the oldest most "ghetto" high school in the city, and we got the mechanics, biology, STDs and all the "fun" stuff like that... but we ALSO got the ultimate scare that should form the backbone of any program: what happens to your life if you get pregnant/when you have a kid... the health teacher gave nice little anecdotes about the psi of human milk production when it's "feeding time", the fact that there's dozens/hundreds of milk holes, etc.
Seriously, we spent nearly an entire 80 minute class just on the sleep alterations, and breast feeding issues/public embarrassments, etc. the rest of the Sex Ed part was spread out over 3-4 days or so.
Edit: from the sounds of some of our "Southern" American users.... I could probably pass for a gynecologist in those states
Grey Templar wrote: All methods need to be taught, including abstinence as an option(and the only 100% safe option).
Here's my question. Why? Why even mention the word Abstinence at all? Sex isn't a bad thing. it's part of life and human relationships and most people want to have it eventually, right? Talking about it by focusing on the negatives, which is all abstinence education really is, is counter productive and potentially damaging.
If we're actually teaching teens what sex is, consent, what contraceptives do, the risks of STDs, it should go without saying that not having sex results in no pregnancy and near no STD transmission (to be fair, we should mention in classes that some STDs can be transferred by other means than sex acts). Unless we're teaching some special ed kids, why bother? I know we expect little of teenagers but I don't think they're so stupid they can't figure that effects won't happen if the cause never occurs.
It should be taught precisely because it has the lowest risk of transferring STDs and causing unwanted pregnancy, which I think is the goal of Sex Education is it not? Which also makes it a nice baseline to compare other methods to.
Sure, it might seem like they should be able to infer it, but really we can't assume anything. Especially given some of the stupid aforementioned myths about sex(standing up/washing afterwards) that are propagated I don't think we can assume they'll always put 2 and 2 together. Better to overstate something than understate it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Abstinence has a place, but teaching it just doesn't make any sense in sex education.
It's like going to a gun safety class only to be taught that you should never buy a gun, touch a gun, or shoot a gun.
Not really. Abstinence doesn't mean you will never have sex ever, it means you will be waiting for someone who you are going to commit to long term. Which makes both individuals in the relationship safer. It also demonstrates your commitment to each other and your desire to protect them.
If you get an incurable STD because you were having casual sex, but then later you finally meet someone you want to spend the rest of your life with you have put them at a risk for the rest of your lives together. Pretty crappy thing to do to your soulmate.
No. God no that's the mentality that is wrong with our sex ed right now!
Sex ed should be about sex, not all the reasons you shouldn't have it (ever. never ever. Don't. Puppies die because you touch yourself!). Sex is part of human life and relationships. Sex ed should be about that. Yeah, there are risks and consequences, but those shouldn't be the focus of a really important conversation for people on their way to adulthood. It's really rich that a country with a sky rocketing divorce rate and an ever increasing age of marriage to preach to kids how they should wait for someone they will 'commit to.' That isn't the world we live in. Why the hell would we try to tell kids that it is?
It should be taught precisely because it has the lowest risk of transferring STDs and causing unwanted pregnancy, which I think is the goal of Sex Education is it not? Which also makes it a nice baseline to compare other methods to.
Sure, it might seem like they should be able to infer it, but really we can't assume anything. Especially given some of the stupid aforementioned myths about sex(standing up/washing afterwards) that are propagated I don't think we can assume they'll always put 2 and 2 together. Better to overstate something than understate it.
The problem is, an "abstinence only" course offering has been proven, time and again (see: Crane High, Crane Texas; Montgomery, AL which is the STD capital of the US) and I find it highly ironic that it's the bible belt of all parts of the US that has these major STD problems. It isn't the "dirty liberal" north what with all those loose/free-morals liberal wimmen running around.
Yes, obviously in any k-12 education involving sex ed, we should mention abstinence only... but frankly, it should be added at the end. Teacher's showing their classes pictures of cauliflower junk, yellow oozing discharges and the like are much more effective, especially when they follow up with, "Don't want any of that stuff? Don't have sex" Naturally, we simply know that this isn't going to NOT happen, so if you provide people with actual scientifically based information to give them better tools by which to make decisions, you may start seeing better numbers on the STD front.
Pretty sure Sex Education is about protecting yourself and others from the dangers. If you want to learn how to have good sex there are other avenues for that, which does not require a class.
LordofHats wrote: It's really rich that a country with a sky rocketing divorce rate and an ever increasing age of marriage to preach to kids how they should wait for someone they will 'commit to.' That isn't the world we live in. Why the hell would we try to tell kids that it is?
Erm.... where are you getting info saying the divorce rate is still skyrocketing? Everything I've seen has said it's leveled off quite a bit since the 90s. And some of the most recent articles I've browsed through are showing that fewer people are getting married in the first place.
@Grey Templar.... Sex ed is/should be about what your body goes through in puberty, what potential outcomes there are in engaging in sexual activities (pregnancy, STDs..... death) I've yet to hear of a single middle/high school sex ed course that had a block of instruction on "how to find the G-spot" or "the proper way to give head to a guy"
Grey Templar wrote: Pretty sure Sex Education is about protecting yourself and others from the dangers.
Code for: sex is bad Timmy. Don't do it and here are all the reasons why. Yes I know this is hyperbole, but its what you're asking for whether you realize it or not.
If you want to learn how to have good sex there are other avenues for that,
So, that's how you see it? We either tell kids sex is bad and they shouldn't have it or we're teaching them how to be good at it? I feel like there's another option here somewhere...
which does not require a class.
That we have sex ed in schools in the first place is a pretty good sign that there isn't. Parents seem remarkably unwilling to actually talk to their kids about this in general. It would be great if they weren't (my parents were useless on this subject. To this day, I think my mom is shocked and ashamed my sister has sex. She's 23). Someone has to actually has to have this conversation and America has shirked that responsibility onto the government. To be fair, I'm not sure I'd even trust parents to be any good at talking to their kids about this subject, because we both know there are plenty of people who will be even crazier and less effective than sex ed we have right now is.
LordofHats wrote: It's really rich that a country with a sky rocketing divorce rate and an ever increasing age of marriage to preach to kids how they should wait for someone they will 'commit to.' That isn't the world we live in. Why the hell would we try to tell kids that it is?
Erm.... where are you getting info saying the divorce rate is still skyrocketing? Everything I've seen has said it's leveled off quite a bit since the 90s. And some of the most recent articles I've browsed through are showing that fewer people are getting married in the first place.
To be honest I haven't look it up recently I just know that we have a high divorce rate, people are getting married and having kids at a later age (if at all), and very few of us end up spending our lives with our first love.
@Grey Templar.... Sex ed is/should be about what your body goes through in puberty, what potential outcomes there are in engaging in sexual activities (pregnancy, STDs..... death) I've yet to hear of a single middle/high school sex ed course that had a block of instruction on "how to find the G-spot" or "the proper way to give head to a guy"
Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
Grey Templar wrote: Pretty sure Sex Education is about protecting yourself and others from the dangers.
Code for: sex is bad Timmy. Don't do it and here are all the reasons why. Yes I know this is hyperbole, but its what you're asking for whether you realize it or not.
Nope. Not at all. Its more like giving the factual information about the dangers and the options to protecting yourself.
Sex Education should also include things on Consent and all that side of it too.
Anything beyond that isn't something the schools should be teaching.
That we have sex ed in schools in the first place is a pretty good sign that there isn't. Parents seem remarkably unwilling to actually talk to their kids about this in general. It would be great if they weren't (my parents were useless on this subject. To this day, I think my mom is shocked and ashamed my sister has sex. She's 23). Someone has to actually has to have this conversation and America has shirked that responsibility onto the government. To be fair, I'm not sure I'd even trust parents to be any good at talking to their kids about this subject, because we both know there are plenty of people who will be even crazier and less effective than sex ed we have right now is.
I agree that it is a huge failing of parents around the country. It really is unfortunate, and a symptom of the larger parenting problem that is going on right now. But I also think that letting the government teach it to our children is itself a problem. More parents should be horrified at this idea and step up and do their jobs.
To be honest I haven't look it up recently I just know that we have a high divorce rate, people are getting married and having kids at a later age (if at all), and very few of us end up spending our lives with our first love.
Which is a terrible thing. Again, I blame the parenting problem.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
No. It should be about biology, psychology, and helping kids transition into being adults by giving them an idea what adult relationships can be like. What's okay. What isn't. What bad things can happen. What good things can happen. An actual education, not dogmatic ideology about commitment and saving one self when the reality already is that few people have sex for the first time with the person they end up marrying. A and B are not the only options.
Its more like giving the factual information about the dangers and the options to protecting yourself.
There's this thing writers look out for called Unfortunate Implications. If you teach a class focusing on protecting yourself from danger, then you're creating an implication that sex is bad and bad things will happen if you have it.
I agree that it is a huge failing of parents around the country. It really is unfortunate, and a symptom of the larger parenting problem that is going on right now. But I also think that letting the government teach it to our children is itself a problem. More parents should be horrified at this idea and step up and do their jobs.
But we both know they won't. Meanwhile, kids are getting bad information that will cause problems for them in the future. On top of that I have a really big hang up about parents forcing their own personal baggage on their kids. While it would be great for parents to step up and talk real about sex and relationships and you know, life, I don't think either of us are that naive, and while people sit and debate what's right and what's wrong like ideology is all that matters, people are having real problems.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
No. It should be about biology, psychology, and helping kids transition into being adults by giving them an idea what adult relationships can be like. What's okay. What isn't. What bad things can happen. What good things can happen. An actual education, not dogmatic ideology about commitment and saving one self when the reality already is that few people have sex for the first time with the person they end up marrying. A and B are not the only options.
I think this type of attitude is actually why we've lost such a good thing. We just became apathetic and decided it was ok to give up.
We should help people with their problems of course, but lets not pretend that its ok.
We should help people with their problems of course, but lets not pretend that its ok.
Why isn't it okay? Is the world going to end if Tom and Jane really enjoy being around each other and want to have sex, but don't want to commit to anything long term? is that going to doom society? I think you have it backwards. We take all this baggage about love, marriage, and commitment and bombard ourselves and our children with it. Then our children grow up and realize that after driving off into the sunset, Indiana Jones and Raven had a whole bunch of arguments and broke up over it, because relationships aren't just kissing, and telling the other person you love them.
And that just gets back to my other point. Do kids really have time for the rest of us to debate the morality of casual sex and serial monogamy?
I think setting them up to have, expect, and desire a healthy long term relationship is best for society in general. We'd have more stable intact homes for children to grow up in, which in turn would keep propagating.
They should be informed its not just kissing and having fun. Its a serious thing that kids need to be taught about more than anything else. I think its something we can't afford to not teach children about. Especially if they don't have good examples at home, the cycle needs to be broken.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
No. It should be about biology, psychology, and helping kids transition into being adults by giving them an idea what adult relationships can be like. What's okay. What isn't. What bad things can happen. What good things can happen. An actual education, not dogmatic ideology about commitment and saving one self when the reality already is that few people have sex for the first time with the person they end up marrying. A and B are not the only options.
Exactly. Sex Ed should be about sex, period. A comprehensive sex education program should cover:
(Seriously, we are all adults here, so I would think we can handle some frank talk about sex)
Spoiler:
- the mechanics of sex, both physical and emotional
- the risks of sex and how they can be minimized
- both of those should include the full range of physical activities that are often pursuit by "abstinence only" kids that end up thinking that they are not having "sex": making out vs outercourse vs oral sex vs anal sex vs vaginal sex. Does it have the potential to be crude and will it be hilarious to a bunch of pre-teens and teenagers? Sure, we would all expect that. But the truth is that a lot of kids that think they are being abstinent because they are not sticking a penis in a vagina are still engaging in all those other activities because they are not sex. Going down on each other is not sex, so it's okay. You can't get pregnant via anal sex, so you don't need to wear a condom. You are wearing your panties so if we are dry humping it's okay and I can ejaculate on your panties because nothing can happen because "it's not sex". So sex education should in fact include talking about how to have sex, the different ways of having sex, and the different options for having safer sex.
- once you cover the whole "how to have sex and how to have safer sex if you are having sex" thing, you should also include the role of sex in their life as well as in their relationships
- make sure that they know that it is their own decision if they have sex and that it is always okay to decide not to have it and that abstinence is in fact an option if they so desire. Don't make it out to be this awesome thing and don't make it out to be a weird scary thing either. Just explain it for what it is: some people wait to have sex until they are married, some people wait until they have someone that they feel really special about, some people think sex is a tool.
- talk about consent and that sex is not just about you but also about your partner and that both of you need to be on the same page about deciding to even have sex as well as having a plan about having safe sex if you do.
- talk about the emotional impact of sex and how it can change a relationship and how it can also lead problems.
- Talk about pornography and how it can lead to unrealistic expectations about sex (about having sex to begin with as well as actual expectations about what sex is like and what is okay and not okay, aka "no Timmy, you can't just go from vaginal sex to just surprise Sue by having surprise anal without letting her know before hand or preparing for it. And whatever you do, don't just go right back to vaginal sex without cleaning that penis. ")
Really, just treat it like a gun safety course:
Yes Billy, they [guns/penises] are dangerous and they can kill you and others You should store it safely and never aim it at anything that you are not prepared to kill. But if used responsibly it can also be a lot of fun and you can do a lot of shooting with that thing. Now Billy, there is a large variety of them and that's okay. Some people like the small ones that fit even the smallest hands and they can be pretty small or they can be thick and stubby but some of them are also long and heavy. I'm not a big fan of that particular style, but some people really like a double barrel and really enjoy an over/under, and we shouldn't judge them for that. Now there are people out there that will tell you that it's a dangerous thing and you should never even handle it, and it is okay if you don't. But if you do just know that there are ways to do it in a safe manner and that as long as you are responsible there will be less of a risk of anybody getting hurt.
Yes Billy, they [guns/penises] are dangerous and they can kill you and others You should store it safely and never aim it at anything that you are not prepared to kill. But if used responsibly it can also be a lot of fun and you can do a lot of shooting with that thing. Now Billy, there is a large variety of them and that's okay. Some people like the small ones that fit even the smallest hands and they can be pretty small or they can be thick and stubby but some of them are also long and heavy. I'm not a big fan of that particular style, but some people really like a double barrel and really enjoy an over/under, and we shouldn't judge them for that. Now there are people out there that will tell you that it's a dangerous thing and you should never even handle it, and it is okay if you don't. But if you do just know that there are ways to do it in a safe manner and that as long as you are responsible there will be less of a risk of anybody getting hurt.
I feel like this is a concept you need to pitch to College Humor D
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
No. It should be about biology, psychology, and helping kids transition into being adults by giving them an idea what adult relationships can be like. What's okay. What isn't. What bad things can happen. What good things can happen. An actual education, not dogmatic ideology about commitment and saving one self when the reality already is that few people have sex for the first time with the person they end up marrying. A and B are not the only options.
Exactly. Sex Ed should be about sex, period. A comprehensive sex education program should cover:
(Seriously, we are all adults here, so I would think we can handle some frank talk about sex)
Spoiler:
- the mechanics of sex, both physical and emotional
- the risks of sex and how they can be minimized
- both of those should include the full range of physical activities that are often pursuit by "abstinence only" kids that end up thinking that they are not having "sex": making out vs outercourse vs oral sex vs anal sex vs vaginal sex. Does it have the potential to be crude and will it be hilarious to a bunch of pre-teens and teenagers? Sure, we would all expect that. But the truth is that a lot of kids that think they are being abstinent because they are not sticking a penis in a vagina are still engaging in all those other activities because they are not sex. Going down on each other is not sex, so it's okay. You can't get pregnant via anal sex, so you don't need to wear a condom. You are wearing your panties so if we are dry humping it's okay and I can ejaculate on your panties because nothing can happen because "it's not sex". So sex education should in fact include talking about how to have sex, the different ways of having sex, and the different options for having safer sex.
- once you cover the whole "how to have sex and how to have safer sex if you are having sex" thing, you should also include the role of sex in their life as well as in their relationships
- make sure that they know that it is their own decision if they have sex and that it is always okay to decide not to have it and that abstinence is in fact an option if they so desire. Don't make it out to be this awesome thing and don't make it out to be a weird scary thing either. Just explain it for what it is: some people wait to have sex until they are married, some people wait until they have someone that they feel really special about, some people think sex is a tool.
- talk about consent and that sex is not just about you but also about your partner and that both of you need to be on the same page about deciding to even have sex as well as having a plan about having safe sex if you do.
- talk about the emotional impact of sex and how it can change a relationship and how it can also lead problems.
- Talk about pornography and how it can lead to unrealistic expectations about sex (about having sex to begin with as well as actual expectations about what sex is like and what is okay and not okay, aka "no Timmy, you can't just go from vaginal sex to just surprise Sue by having surprise anal without letting her know before hand or preparing for it. And whatever you do, don't just go right back to vaginal sex without cleaning that penis. ")
Really, just treat it like a gun safety course:
Yes Billy, they [guns/penises] are dangerous and they can kill you and others You should store it safely and never aim it at anything that you are not prepared to kill. But if used responsibly it can also be a lot of fun and you can do a lot of shooting with that thing. Now Billy, there is a large variety of them and that's okay. Some people like the small ones that fit even the smallest hands and they can be pretty small or they can be thick and stubby but some of them are also long and heavy. I'm not a big fan of that particular style, but some people really like a double barrel and really enjoy an over/under, and we shouldn't judge them for that. Now there are people out there that will tell you that it's a dangerous thing and you should never even handle it, and it is okay if you don't. But if you do just know that there are ways to do it in a safe manner and that as long as you are responsible there will be less of a risk of anybody getting hurt.
I think the emotional angle of how sex can change a relationship is right on the mark. We have spoken with our kids about sex almost their whole lives, starting at around age 5 with telling them their birth stories and let them digest that, answering, questions they had about it. As they grew, we added more to their knowledge until they have the full picture. We want them to know sex can be either a disaster or a blessing depending on how they approach it.
Abstinence only sex ed seems to have been cooked up with the assumption that people only have sex in marriage and that they then don't need contraception, which is a bit Catholic. It doesn't matter whether you believe in casual sex or not, eventually most people settle long term with a partner and need to use contraception or they'll be turning out kids one after the other. Most married couples use contraception.
It's very condescending and ignorant that the education system in the US takes the approach that it's primarily about telling kids not to have sex at all (because they're just having sex with anything) rather than informing people about their health options that will be useful for most of their life. That's not education, just telling people not to have sex is not teaching them about anything.
I am still shocked that "abstinence" is taught at schools. Ho stupid do people assume youngsters to be that they have to explicitely be taught that "no sex = no kids"? Come on.
Then again, this comes from the same country where people suggest consent forms...
Grey Templar wrote: They should be informed its not just kissing and having fun. Its a serious thing that kids need to be taught about more than anything else. I think its something we can't afford to not teach children about. Especially if they don't have good examples at home, the cycle needs to be broken.
What exactly is wrong with having safe casual sex with no intent of a long-term relationship?
There's kind of a line here between serving the public safety\health, and using the government to push your social norms and agenda. Teaching sex ed with the idea that sex should only be in furtherance of a stable monogamous relationship seems pretty far on one side of that scale.
Then again, this comes from the same country where people suggest consent forms...
The irony is that consent forms began as a hyperbolic myth by conservative groups to mock the idea of affirmative consent. Then some advocacy groups and college campuses actually started to band wagon on the idea. Without intention of comedy.
Then again, this comes from the same country where people suggest consent forms...
The irony is that consent forms began as a hyperbolic myth by conservative groups to mock the idea of affirmative consent. Then some advocacy groups and college campuses actually started to band wagon on the idea. Without intention of comedy.
It's burning through my retina like an acid made of stupid.
The really sad part is as far as I can tell, colleges got behind the idea because they really don't like having to deal with sex assault/rape accusations. But a huge chunk (something like half) of assault/rape incidents on college campus' involve alcohol.
Signing a contract while drunk renders the contract invalid, so even if parties actually went through the trouble (which I'm high skeptical many do), it wouldn't preclude an accusation from being made.
Why did you even bother?! *Asking college campuses* You'd make more headway cracking down on frat parties and college drinking!
A consent form shouldn't mean squat. You're not compelled to go through with having sex afterwards. If you change your mind just seconds before or during the act and the person you're with forces you to carry on, it's still rape.
Consent form are just stupid to begin with. If you ever encounter someone with such a thing, it'd be a huge red flag as said person either is of little intelligence or a SJW (not mutually exclusive...in the contrary). Red flag is red. Not worth discussing.
What should be taught is responsible drinking. If still you wanna get totally drunk, then yeah, your decision mate.
Grey Templar wrote: They should be informed its not just kissing and having fun. Its a serious thing that kids need to be taught about more than anything else. I think its something we can't afford to not teach children about. Especially if they don't have good examples at home, the cycle needs to be broken.
What exactly is wrong with having safe casual sex with no intent of a long-term relationship?
There's kind of a line here between serving the public safety\health, and using the government to push your social norms and agenda. Teaching sex ed with the idea that sex should only be in furtherance of a stable monogamous relationship seems pretty far on one side of that scale.
Well, aside from the moral issues which is a different thing all together, there is always a danger of catching an STD. "Safe" sex implies there is no risk, which is very false. I think the term actually needs to be dropped and changed to Low Risk(IE: you are using protection). Really the only truly Safe Sex is between 2 individuals who are known to be free of STDs. And as was mentioned previously, there are many STDs which can be spread outside of direct intercourse(kissing) which a condom wouldn't fully protect you from.
There is also the emotional issue. Sex is an emotional act and engaging in it casually builds up unrealistic emotional expectations, and the danger that if one party develops a stronger connection than the other that they'll get hurt when the other person doesn't want to commit and moves on. Its playing Russian Roulette with your emotional state.
Grey Templar wrote: They should be informed its not just kissing and having fun. Its a serious thing that kids need to be taught about more than anything else. I think its something we can't afford to not teach children about. Especially if they don't have good examples at home, the cycle needs to be broken.
What exactly is wrong with having safe casual sex with no intent of a long-term relationship?
There's kind of a line here between serving the public safety\health, and using the government to push your social norms and agenda. Teaching sex ed with the idea that sex should only be in furtherance of a stable monogamous relationship seems pretty far on one side of that scale.
Well, aside from the moral issues which is a different thing all together, there is always a danger of catching an STD. "Safe" sex implies there is no risk, which is very false. I think the term actually needs to be dropped and changed to Low Risk(IE: you are using protection). Really the only truly Safe Sex is between 2 individuals who are known to be free of STDs. And as was mentioned previously, there are many STDs which can be spread outside of direct intercourse(kissing) which a condom wouldn't fully protect you from.
There is also the emotional issue. Sex is an emotional act and engaging in it casually builds up unrealistic emotional expectations, and the danger that if one party develops a stronger connection than the other that they'll get hurt when the other person doesn't want to commit and moves on. Its playing Russian Roulette with your emotional state.
This is as relevant as thinking that driving is wrong because you can kill yourself on the road.
Not at all. I don't really have a choice to not drive. Its not an option. I do have a choice to not engage in casual sex with short term relationships that has a good chance of causing emotional harm.
Grey Templar wrote: Not at all. I don't really have a choice to not drive. Its not an option. I do have a choice to not engage in casual sex with short term relationships that has a good chance of causing emotional harm.
I wonder if there is any statistics or studies out talking about emotional effects of people being used and cast aside in such relationships. Antecdotaly speaking, I have seen people of both sexes going through severe depression from this.
Not sure, but I doubt it. There would probably be a lot of people who would simply suffer in silence because they feel that its their fault for getting attached when they "knew it was only supposed to be casual".
Grey Templar wrote: Not at all. I don't really have a choice to not drive. Its not an option. I do have a choice to not engage in casual sex with short term relationships that has a good chance of causing emotional harm.
Remember kids, before you engage in casual sex with another person, make sure they know it is casual. You do not want to hurt their feelings, how would you feel if you were having sex with a person and they just up and left. Said they had no feelings for you. It would hurt. You do not want to do that to another person, just let them know first. It is the right thing to do. Now lets talk about the intracacies of relationships and what it means to devote your life to one other person. - Teacher
Some people make different choices than you do Grey Templar, but they should not be ostracized or looked down upon for it. Instead, we should prepare them for many different paths in life by giving them a full, comprehensive education where they can make well educated decisions. Instead of the "Do not have sex until you are in a committed relationship and everything will be A OK" one lane highway everybody seems to be so backed up on.
As for the argument of having parents do this vs the government. Most parents are fething idiots. They have no clue what they are doing. Why entrust everything to them when you have a public school system where you can have a class based 100% on scientific fact that will teach them about the realities of the world?
I think you misunderstand. This is the case where 2 people go into a relationship wanting it to be casual, but there is a good chance that one of them might develop some emotional attachment. If the emotional attachment isn't mutual than that person ends up getting hurt.
Engaging in casual relationships is playing with fire. People should be informed about the consequences, which can be severe as Relapse mentioned.
It gets even worse if the two individuals didn't define the relationship upfront. One person was just looking for casual and other was looking for something serious, and there was no communication of this. Then you definitely end up with people getting hurt.
That is the danger of having casual relationships. This isn't communicated to people, and absolutely needs to be.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. All methods need to be taught, including abstinence as an option(and the only 100% safe option).
Pfft, tell that to the Virgin Mary.
On a serious note: I feel that whilst abstinence may have a small place (a very small place), teaching it during Sex Ed seems counter productive.
'Heres how humans reproduce or have fun. Here's how to keep safe doing it, and prevent any accidental reproduction. Now never ever do it ever or you're going to burn in hell' seems like it would cause more harm than good. For one because the idea of abstinence only shames people for their own biological urges.
Grey Templar wrote: I think you misunderstand. This is the case where 2 people go into a relationship wanting it to be casual, but there is a good chance that one of them might develop some emotional attachment. If the emotional attachment isn't mutual than that person ends up getting hurt.
Engaging in casual relationships is playing with fire. People should be informed about the consequences, which can be severe as Relapse mentioned.
It gets even worse if the two individuals didn't define the relationship upfront. One person was just looking for casual and other was looking for something serious, and there was no communication of this. Then you definitely end up with people getting hurt.
That is the danger of having casual relationships. This isn't communicated to people, and absolutely needs to be.
As for the first, then there is nothing you can ever do to deal with that issue. The person clearly did not understand that the other person wanted it to be casual, despite the other person telling them that. That is their problem and should not be something we use as an excuse to shun those people who do have casual sexual relationships. That would be absurd.
As for the second, I already explained how that problem could be solved.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. All methods need to be taught, including abstinence as an option(and the only 100% safe option).
Pfft, tell that to the Virgin Mary.
On a serious note: I feel that whilst abstinence may have a small place (a very small place), teaching it during Sex Ed seems counter productive.
'Heres how humans reproduce or have fun. Here's how to keep safe doing it, and prevent any accidental reproduction. Now never ever do it ever or you're going to burn in hell' seems like it would cause more harm than good. For one because the idea of abstinence only shames people for their own biological urges.
Its not shaming, its telling people the honest truth that by not only seeking sex in healthy monogamous relationships you are exposing yourself to physical and emotional danger. The physical dangers can be mitigated, the emotional dangers not so much.
Sex is a beautiful thing, until you contaminate it with emotional injury(which can be far far worse than any STD).
True enough I suppose, but there is way way less danger if both people are treating the relationship as a serious one and trying to make it work long term.
Don't make it seem like they are equally dangerous.
It's interesting how much more people are willing to agree with "parents aren't teaching their kids about sex, so lets make the government do it instead" versus... say... "parents aren't getting health insurance for their kids, so lets make the government do it instead".
Sometimes government is the best answer to personal failings, looks like. I mean at this point we seem to be willing to have schools mandate discussion the dangers of casual sex rejection butthurt.
I still think Sex Education should be something parents have control over when/if their children receive it. Maybe schools should provide a Sex Education kit for parents who want to teach their children themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Alright Grey Templar, I am calling you out. I need you to provide some facts for your "honest truth" sex ed.
It really just sounds like some sort of way to limit personal freedom for young people.....
I am talking about an ideal sex education program. Not the stuff which happens currently.
I think both Abstinence only programs and other "normal" programs are all doing it wrong.
Or are you disagreeing that emotional harm can occur from lack of communication and people having different expectations?
And nobody is trying to limit personal freedoms. Thats not possible actually. We can't prevent people from screwing around. We can tell them about the dangers of screwing around.
Grey Templar wrote: I still think Sex Education should be something parents have control over when/if their children receive it. Maybe schools should provide a Sex Education kit for parents who want to teach their children themselves.
I have soooo many hilariously creepy pictures in my mind, now
Grey Templar wrote: I still think Sex Education should be something parents have control over when/if their children receive it. Maybe schools should provide a Sex Education kit for parents who want to teach their children themselves.
I have soooo many hilariously creepy pictures in my mind, now
Yeah yeah.
But really its less creepy than the idea of kids learning about it in a classroom setting.
I think one thing people need to do is also tell kids porn isnt reality. I have heared a cew stories where the guy hurts the women because he trys something he saw on porntub
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think one thing people need to do is also tell kids porn isnt reality. I have heared a cew stories where the guy hurts the women because he trys something he saw on porntub
Grey Templar wrote: But really its less creepy than the idea of kids learning about it in a classroom setting.
How is that in any way creepy?
Speaking as someone who was taught biology (including large parts of the sex ed course) by his mum and who's wife also teaches biology, I'm really struggling to see why this is any more creepy than any other fact based discussion and group learning and development course.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. All methods need to be taught, including abstinence as an option(and the only 100% safe option).
Pfft, tell that to the Virgin Mary.
On a serious note: I feel that whilst abstinence may have a small place (a very small place), teaching it during Sex Ed seems counter productive.
'Heres how humans reproduce or have fun. Here's how to keep safe doing it, and prevent any accidental reproduction. Now never ever do it ever or you're going to burn in hell' seems like it would cause more harm than good. For one because the idea of abstinence only shames people for their own biological urges.
Its not shaming, its telling people the honest truth that by not only seeking sex in healthy monogamous relationships you are exposing yourself to physical and emotional danger. The physical dangers can be mitigated, the emotional dangers not so much.
Sex is a beautiful thing, until you contaminate it with emotional injury(which can be far far worse than any STD).
Because no one has ever been emotionally hurt by a 'healthy monogamous relationship'? I mean, you're holding up a long term relationship as the ultimate happy ever after, where you've gotten married and so nothing will ever go wrong again, and frankly that's ridiculous.
Even if you *are* seeking 'healthy monogamous relationships' without sex involved at all, you're still opening yourself up to emotional danger; the involvement of sex has no bearing in that whatsoever. And the point of sex ed should be to educate people on how to limit the risk of any of the physical danger you mentioned.
Honest question: How, in your view, does the addition of sex to a relationship make it any more emotionally dangerous than a relationship without sex?
From the way you're wording it, it comes across as the whole 'losing your virginity is a magical moment with rainbows and dreams' schtick; that sex suddenly makes any relationship all the more meaningful and soul-matey. That strikes me as far more dangerous than the possibility of casual sex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: But really its less creepy than the idea of kids learning about it in a classroom setting.
I'd have much preferred to have learnt about what sex was in school. As it was, in year six we learnt about genitals and sperm/eggs, and that was it. No information on how sperm comes into contact with eggs, no safety precautions gak, nothing. We only got taught what the actual act of sex was when I was fifteen, almost five years later, and then safety precautions such as contraception/condoms/STIs was a year later during a special education morning (no normal lessons, huge varied classes made up of the entire year) where I happened to be helping with a different year's classes, so I missed out on the safety precautions.
I found out what sex was by thinking I'd made a logical connection, not knowing that it was an awkward topic, and blurting out and asking my mother 'is sex when a penis goes in a vagina?' on the way home from school one Saturday morning when I was about 12.
That was far more awkward than any school class could be, in my opinion.
Grey Templar wrote: Not at all. I don't really have a choice to not drive. Its not an option. I do have a choice to not engage in casual sex with short term relationships that has a good chance of causing emotional harm.
Remember kids, before you engage in casual sex with another person, make sure they know it is casual. You do not want to hurt their feelings, how would you feel if you were having sex with a person and they just up and left. Said they had no feelings for you. It would hurt. You do not want to do that to another person, just let them know first. It is the right thing to do. Now lets talk about the intracacies of relationships and what it means to devote your life to one other person. - Teacher
Some people make different choices than you do Grey Templar, but they should not be ostracized or looked down upon for it. Instead, we should prepare them for many different paths in life by giving them a full, comprehensive education where they can make well educated decisions. Instead of the "Do not have sex until you are in a committed relationship and everything will be A OK" one lane highway everybody seems to be so backed up on.
As for the argument of having parents do this vs the government. Most parents are fething idiots. They have no clue what they are doing. Why entrust everything to them when you have a public school system where you can have a class based 100% on scientific fact that will teach them about the realities of the world?
All we have to do is fund it!
On the other hand,from the posts I'm seeing, the school system isn't doing that hot a job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I think you misunderstand. This is the case where 2 people go into a relationship wanting it to be casual, but there is a good chance that one of them might develop some emotional attachment. If the emotional attachment isn't mutual than that person ends up getting hurt.
Engaging in casual relationships is playing with fire. People should be informed about the consequences, which can be severe as Relapse mentioned.
It gets even worse if the two individuals didn't define the relationship upfront. One person was just looking for casual and other was looking for something serious, and there was no communication of this. Then you definitely end up with people getting hurt.
That is the danger of having casual relationships. This isn't communicated to people, and absolutely needs to be.
More antecdotes from my experience. We had a couple of suicides in my high school class that I know of from people that got into these kinds of relationships where their partner didn't take it nearly as seriously and went on to other people. One of them murdered the partner before killing himself. The other shot himself in the chest with a .22, in his bedroom, and his mom found him sitting in his bed.
Dreadwinter wrote: They are not doing that hot of a job at all. I mean that for pretty much everything they teach. Because our funding of education is hilariously low.
I agree with you about leaving everything in the hands of the parents, though. I wonder if having medical and psychiatric specialists in this travel to the different schools teaching sex Ed classes, making it less of a patchwork than it seems at the moment.
Ouze wrote: It's interesting how much more people are willing to agree with "parents aren't teaching their kids about sex, so lets make the government do it instead" versus... say... "parents aren't getting health insurance for their kids, so lets make the government do it instead".
Sometimes government is the best answer to personal failings, looks like. I mean at this point we seem to be willing to have schools mandate discussion the dangers of casual sex rejection butthurt.
Kids get taught all about stds and sex at school and have been since I was a kid. Its basically a free love fest out there right now and STD #'s are going up despite school led sex education. This generation is very much into drugs and casual unprotected sex.
Id say schools are as ineffective as parents if not more so.
Ouze wrote: It's interesting how much more people are willing to agree with "parents aren't teaching their kids about sex, so lets make the government do it instead" versus... say... "parents aren't getting health insurance for their kids, so lets make the government do it instead".
Sometimes government is the best answer to personal failings, looks like. I mean at this point we seem to be willing to have schools mandate discussion the dangers of casual sex rejection butthurt.
Kids get taught all about stds and sex at school and have been since I was a kid. Its basically a free love fest out there right now and STD #'s are going up despite school led sex education. This generation is very much into drugs and casual unprotected sex.
Id say schools are as ineffective as parents if not more so.
Citation needed.
National rates may be increasing but that could be due to states/counties with abstinence-heavy programs dragging the rates up by not providing free contraception or instructions on use. Lumping all sex-ed in together and saying that it doesn't work to reduce STD rates when the approach is so wildly different between types of sex-ed makes the statement that sex-ed doesn't work completely meaningless.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. All methods need to be taught, including abstinence as an option(and the only 100% safe option).
Pfft, tell that to the Virgin Mary.
On a serious note: I feel that whilst abstinence may have a small place (a very small place), teaching it during Sex Ed seems counter productive.
'Heres how humans reproduce or have fun. Here's how to keep safe doing it, and prevent any accidental reproduction. Now never ever do it ever or you're going to burn in hell' seems like it would cause more harm than good. For one because the idea of abstinence only shames people for their own biological urges.
Its not shaming, its telling people the honest truth that by not only seeking sex in healthy monogamous relationships you are exposing yourself to physical and emotional danger. The physical dangers can be mitigated, the emotional dangers not so much.
Sex is a beautiful thing, until you contaminate it with emotional injury(which can be far far worse than any STD).
Because no one has ever been emotionally hurt by a 'healthy monogamous relationship'? I mean, you're holding up a long term relationship as the ultimate happy ever after, where you've gotten married and so nothing will ever go wrong again, and frankly that's ridiculous.
Even if you *are* seeking 'healthy monogamous relationships' without sex involved at all, you're still opening yourself up to emotional danger; the involvement of sex has no bearing in that whatsoever. And the point of sex ed should be to educate people on how to limit the risk of any of the physical danger you mentioned.
Honest question: How, in your view, does the addition of sex to a relationship make it any more emotionally dangerous than a relationship without sex?
From the way you're wording it, it comes across as the whole 'losing your virginity is a magical moment with rainbows and dreams' schtick; that sex suddenly makes any relationship all the more meaningful and soul-matey. That strikes me as far more dangerous than the possibility of casual sex.
I'm not saying a monogamous relationship cannot have issues. They can. I am saying its less likely to have problems than having a bunch of casual relationships, where its not really just two people that are potentially at stake here. It could be a series of partners who get emotionally hurt, or one person getting repeatedly emotionally injured by one sour relationship after the other.
As for your question, its because Sex is an extremely intimate and emotional thing. Adding it to a relationship is raising the emotional stakes to very high levels. And no, I don't think this is specifically tied to virginity or that losing it to someone special automatically makes the relationship special, that is absolutely not true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: They are not doing that hot of a job at all. I mean that for pretty much everything they teach. Because our funding of education is hilariously low.
That is actually incorrect. The US spends more per student than most other countries. Funding isn't the problem. Its that the education system itself squanders the money.
As for your question, its because Sex is an extremely intimate and emotional thing. Adding it to a relationship is raising the emotional stakes to very high levels. And no, I don't think this is specifically tied to virginity or that losing it to someone special automatically makes the relationship special, that is absolutely not true.
That depends entirely on the person. Sex can be very intimate and emotional. It can also just be a bit of fun. It can be both things for the same person, depending on the partner at the time.
That is actually incorrect. The US spends more per student than most other countries. Funding isn't the problem. Its that the education system itself squanders the money.
As you can see the US ranks pretty high on that list.
That will include the amount the US spends on abstinence programs which have, time and again, been found to have no effect on reducing STD or pregnancy rates. And the money spent on those programs has been increasing.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. All methods need to be taught, including abstinence as an option(and the only 100% safe option).
Pfft, tell that to the Virgin Mary.
On a serious note: I feel that whilst abstinence may have a small place (a very small place), teaching it during Sex Ed seems counter productive.
'Heres how humans reproduce or have fun. Here's how to keep safe doing it, and prevent any accidental reproduction. Now never ever do it ever or you're going to burn in hell' seems like it would cause more harm than good. For one because the idea of abstinence only shames people for their own biological urges.
Its not shaming, its telling people the honest truth that by not only seeking sex in healthy monogamous relationships you are exposing yourself to physical and emotional danger. The physical dangers can be mitigated, the emotional dangers not so much.
Sex is a beautiful thing, until you contaminate it with emotional injury(which can be far far worse than any STD).
Because no one has ever been emotionally hurt by a 'healthy monogamous relationship'? I mean, you're holding up a long term relationship as the ultimate happy ever after, where you've gotten married and so nothing will ever go wrong again, and frankly that's ridiculous.
Even if you *are* seeking 'healthy monogamous relationships' without sex involved at all, you're still opening yourself up to emotional danger; the involvement of sex has no bearing in that whatsoever. And the point of sex ed should be to educate people on how to limit the risk of any of the physical danger you mentioned.
Honest question: How, in your view, does the addition of sex to a relationship make it any more emotionally dangerous than a relationship without sex?
From the way you're wording it, it comes across as the whole 'losing your virginity is a magical moment with rainbows and dreams' schtick; that sex suddenly makes any relationship all the more meaningful and soul-matey. That strikes me as far more dangerous than the possibility of casual sex.
I'm not saying a monogamous relationship cannot have issues. They can. I am saying its less likely to have problems than having a bunch of casual relationships, where its not really just two people that are potentially at stake here.
Citation needed. Considering this is the linchpin of your argument, I'm sure you can back it up.
As for your question, its because Sex is an extremely intimate and emotional thing. Adding it to a relationship is raising the emotional stakes to very high levels. And no, I don't think this is specifically tied to virginity or that losing it to someone special automatically makes the relationship special, that is absolutely not true.
That depends entirely on the person. Sex can be very intimate and emotional. It can also just be a bit of fun. It can be both things for the same person, depending on the partner at the time.
Both are equally valid.
Which is the problem. When people have different expectations, or changing expectations. Ok, you and this other person are going to be involved in a casual relationship just for fun, and you have stated it as such. You are taking the risk of one of you developing an emotional attachment, which will lead to hurt feelings if you both don't develop them.
Dreadwinter wrote: They are not doing that hot of a job at all. I mean that for pretty much everything they teach. Because our funding of education is hilariously low.
I agree with you about leaving everything in the hands of the parents, though. I wonder if having medical and psychiatric specialists in this travel to the different schools teaching sex Ed classes, making it less of a patchwork than it seems at the moment.
Big enough school districts might be able to come up with a good program where a set of people covering all the areas might be able to do a comprehensive class. Maybe a combo of school nurse for the health and biology aspects, an actual licensed therapist for the relationship and mental health aspect, and an actual teacher for the "how to teach it" aspect. Have them come up with a program that maybe covers a total of 4 hours, they can travel to all the schools and take an afternoon to teach, and then be available to the kids for all follow up: the nurse if you have medical questions about STDs, safer sex, pregnancy. The therapist if you have problems with relationships, abuse, forced to do something, etc.
On a state level it could maybe be a program by the health department that travels to schools?
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. All methods need to be taught, including abstinence as an option(and the only 100% safe option).
Pfft, tell that to the Virgin Mary.
On a serious note: I feel that whilst abstinence may have a small place (a very small place), teaching it during Sex Ed seems counter productive.
'Heres how humans reproduce or have fun. Here's how to keep safe doing it, and prevent any accidental reproduction. Now never ever do it ever or you're going to burn in hell' seems like it would cause more harm than good. For one because the idea of abstinence only shames people for their own biological urges.
Its not shaming, its telling people the honest truth that by not only seeking sex in healthy monogamous relationships you are exposing yourself to physical and emotional danger. The physical dangers can be mitigated, the emotional dangers not so much.
Sex is a beautiful thing, until you contaminate it with emotional injury(which can be far far worse than any STD).
Because no one has ever been emotionally hurt by a 'healthy monogamous relationship'? I mean, you're holding up a long term relationship as the ultimate happy ever after, where you've gotten married and so nothing will ever go wrong again, and frankly that's ridiculous.
Even if you *are* seeking 'healthy monogamous relationships' without sex involved at all, you're still opening yourself up to emotional danger; the involvement of sex has no bearing in that whatsoever. And the point of sex ed should be to educate people on how to limit the risk of any of the physical danger you mentioned.
Honest question: How, in your view, does the addition of sex to a relationship make it any more emotionally dangerous than a relationship without sex?
From the way you're wording it, it comes across as the whole 'losing your virginity is a magical moment with rainbows and dreams' schtick; that sex suddenly makes any relationship all the more meaningful and soul-matey. That strikes me as far more dangerous than the possibility of casual sex.
I'm not saying a monogamous relationship cannot have issues. They can. I am saying its less likely to have problems than having a bunch of casual relationships, where its not really just two people that are potentially at stake here.
Citation needed. Considering this is the linchpin of your argument, I'm sure you can back it up.
As for your question, its because Sex is an extremely intimate and emotional thing. Adding it to a relationship is raising the emotional stakes to very high levels. And no, I don't think this is specifically tied to virginity or that losing it to someone special automatically makes the relationship special, that is absolutely not true.
That depends entirely on the person. Sex can be very intimate and emotional. It can also just be a bit of fun. It can be both things for the same person, depending on the partner at the time.
Both are equally valid.
Which is the problem. When people have different expectations, or changing expectations. Ok, you and this other person are going to be involved in a casual relationship just for fun, and you have stated it as such. You are taking the risk of one of you developing an emotional attachment, which will lead to hurt feelings if you both don't develop them.
That can happen even when sex is not involved.
Also, you keep referring to casual relationships. What about just one night stands? Not all casual sex is with the same person each time. And with proper care (condoms, IUD/injection/implant/pill, don't get with somebody with a cold sore etc.) the risks of many partners can be lessened greatly.
As for your question, its because Sex is an extremely intimate and emotional thing. Adding it to a relationship is raising the emotional stakes to very high levels. And no, I don't think this is specifically tied to virginity or that losing it to someone special automatically makes the relationship special, that is absolutely not true.
That depends entirely on the person. Sex can be very intimate and emotional. It can also just be a bit of fun. It can be both things for the same person, depending on the partner at the time.
Both are equally valid.
Which is the problem. When people have different expectations, or changing expectations. Ok, you and this other person are going to be involved in a casual relationship just for fun, and you have stated it as such. You are taking the risk of one of you developing an emotional attachment, which will lead to hurt feelings if you both don't develop them.
That can happen even when sex is not involved.
Also, you keep referring to casual relationships. What about just one night stands? Not all casual sex is with the same person each time. And with proper care (condoms, IUD/injection/implant/pill, don't get with somebody with a cold sore etc.) the risks of many partners can be lessened greatly.
True, but sex raises the emotional stakes. A relationship which doesn't involve sex isn't going to be on the same level as one which doesn't.
As for one night stands, those just seem to be extra extra risky. You don't even have the possibility of clarifying beyond their word that they aren't infected with an STD, and just looking for Cold Sores is a terrible method of staying safe. And I've never heard of a one night stand that didn't involve alcohol in some fashion, which adds impaired judgement into the mix.
I went to sleep for like, 7 hours. What happened XD
People are over thinking this. Over thinking this is how we ended up where we are in the first place. Schools should be teaching as much fact and as little ideology as possible. It's not the government's job to espouse Judeo-Christian values (seriously who does this need to even be explained?). The goal isn't to provide them a flawless lesson plan on how to get laid and enjoy life, it's giving them the tools too reach that end on their own and NOT loading them up with a bunch of bs and false expectations. We don't need some complicated course explaining "this is what serial monogamy is" once armed with adequate knowledge about sex kids will venture into the world and they'll figure it out like everyone else hurt and all.
Because that's life.
You're born. You live a little. Hurt a little. Be happy a little. Then you die. It's too short to shoehorn yourself with "but what if I'm not with this person in 30 years" or "what if this ends up hurting mah feels in 6 months?"
Grey Templar wrote: [
As for one night stands, those just seem to be extra extra risky. You don't even have the possibility of clarifying beyond their word that they aren't infected with an STD, and just looking for Cold Sores is a terrible method of staying safe. And I've never heard of a one night stand that didn't involve alcohol in some fashion, which adds impaired judgement into the mix.
Simple correlation. The reason for why ONS often involve alcohol is that they most often start at places where alcohol is handed out - as those places are primary pick-up places.
There are also benefits to not being monogamous. The state has no business endorsing one or the other.
(Also, don't forget that "monogamous" only refers to how many other people you're involved with simultaneously. Serial monogamy with a new partner every week is much worse, from a risk point of view, than a non-monogamous relationship where three people all have sex with each other but not with anyone else.)
Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?
Given that everyone at my university just had to complete a course involving consent and how to recognize the signs of relationship violence I would say that there probably are people who don't realize that, and probably a larger chunk who don't care.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?
I honestly think some don't. I've seen some crazy definitions of what constitutes consent (ranging from "she didn't say no, which means yes!" to "drunk girls are easy" < is actually shocked when girl's friends nearly get him thrown out of school). I don't think kids are so stupid they can't figure out a follows b only if a happens in the first place, but I do think it's somewhat evident that a lot of teenagers and young adults have yet to put together that looking to get laid at wild drinking parties is a recipe for messing gak up.
Kids have all the right information, know they *should* use condoms and birth control, know they *shouldnt* do drugs, they *should* do their homework, ect ect ect.
Doesnt mean they do it...
Education is one thing, one that you can indeed argue our educational systems do an ok to poor job of, but *enforcement* of what is taught is 100% out of the schools power.
Also, in a thread where the topic is specifically the rise of STD's ... asking for citation on that very topic is akin to asking someone to point out where the sky is.
I know canada is different, but up here the pill/condoms are free, education is modern, the information is there at no charge and in schools. Birth control is there and free for the taking, but we still have a surge in STD's and the culture is very much a hook up culture of YOLO free love ect ect.
I think both Abstinence only programs and other "normal" programs are all doing it wrong.
The thing is, even if places that don't do "abstinence only", and offer/require courses that include STDs, preventive measures/contraceptives.... the statistics bear out.
That is the result of "abstinence only" programming.
The simple fact is, areas of the country such as Oregon (at least when I was in school there) and more "liberal" places that cover use of condoms/contraceptives, the potential hazards of anal, etc. and generally cover the human reproductive system in a more indepth manner than "don't touch each other" have far fewer cases and outbreaks of easily preventable STDs and teenage pregnancy. These "normal" programs may do it wrong by your book, but if they are seriously more effective than that school in Texas I just linked to.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?
That is something older people don't seem to have a handle on, either. I have to agree with Hotsauce on this. It seems too much is entrusted to the common sense of teenagers with the illusion that they know more about the world than they really do.
I think both Abstinence only programs and other "normal" programs are all doing it wrong.
The thing is, even if places that don't do "abstinence only", and offer/require courses that include STDs, preventive measures/contraceptives.... the statistics bear out.
That is the result of "abstinence only" programming.
The simple fact is, areas of the country such as Oregon (at least when I was in school there) and more "liberal" places that cover use of condoms/contraceptives, the potential hazards of anal, etc. and generally cover the human reproductive system in a more indepth manner than "don't touch each other" have far fewer cases and outbreaks of easily preventable STDs and teenage pregnancy. These "normal" programs may do it wrong by your book, but if they are seriously more effective than that school in Texas I just linked to.
And I am not advocating for Abstinence only Sex Ed. I am asking that Abstinence be properly taught in addition to other methods. The issue is that Abstinence isn't viewed as a legitimate option, but only because its been improperly presented. Everyone is at fault here.
And I am not advocating for Abstinence only Sex Ed. I am asking that Abstinence be properly taught in addition to other methods. The issue is that Abstinence isn't viewed as a legitimate option, but only because its been improperly presented. Everyone is at fault here.
Perhaps there's something we're missing here then because, based on what I went through in school, there isn't much better way to cover abstinence... Take for instance, the teacher went through various STDs, a few pictures of what they look like (pretty damn tame compared to ones I saw later on in the military) and then followed up the scare session with "the only 100% way to not get those, is abstinence"... She then covered contraceptives, saying condoms are 99.9% effective, IUDs are 99 or whatever % effective, etc. and followed it up with, "the only 100% sure way to not get pregnant is abstinence"
At no point did she ever say, "if you jerk off, you're going to hell because the BIBLE!!!" at no point did she say, "girls, if you have sex before you're married, you cant get to heaven because they don't accept dirty sluts, which is what you'd be because of your impurity"
No... all she said was factually true: you can't get knocked up, get an STD or any thing like that if you completely abstain.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Thats another thing that needs to be taught IMO in sex ed. Sex and alchohol, and how it isnt always the best combonation. Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
You're saying the 'young people' today don't already know this?!?
They don't, but it's not just "young people". There are plenty of people in my own age group (the 35-45 age bracket on the tax form) that have a very, very murky view of what "consent" means.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
Ehm, no.
Ehm, yes... It's the US mate. if a person, or both people are drunk, their "consent" is pretty much invalid in court due to their inebriation.
The problem (or at least, FB keyboard warrior problem) is that if say, 2 college kids are drunk, but both regret it in the morning, it can become a "race" to the police station to report that they'd been raped (assuming the local law allows for male rape)
hotsauceman1 wrote: Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
Ehm, no.
I don't know about Germany, but in the US the answer is yes. If someone is drunk and you have sex with them, you can be charged with sex assault or rape even if they said yes because some laws specify that consent cannot be given if someone is drunk.
The general gray area (which is a complete cluster) is what happens when both parties are drunk? Well the law still qualifies it as a crime (like drunk driving).
And of course, a lot of people in the US do think that it's okay to have sex with a drunk person if said drunk person agrees, completely ignorant that is a crime and they can be charged.
Going out with the GF, having some drinks with dinner, catching a movie, and going home for some "cuddling" is not a crime.
Going to a bar, and walking home with a woman who can barely stand, slurs her words, and "cuddling" very well could be. Even if she was smiling the whole time and said yes enthusiastically.
It's not just a sex thing. Under US law, people can't legally do a lot of things while legally intoxicated. Signing legal documents and making verbal agreements (i.e. consent) is one of them. It's why notary publics exist and lots of agreements are signed in front of witnesses. I mean, a drunk person might sign over the deed to their house, but if they take you to court the next day the court is gonna declare that agreement nonbinding (i.e. in the eyes of the law it never happened). This is all practical because well... We don't laugh at stupid things drunk people do because they were being smart.
I think both Abstinence only programs and other "normal" programs are all doing it wrong.
The thing is, even if places that don't do "abstinence only", and offer/require courses that include STDs, preventive measures/contraceptives.... the statistics bear out.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
Ehm, no.
Ehm, Yes, if you are drunk, you cannot legally consent.
In the US, but maybe not in Germany. Only him can confirm that anyway.
This seems to be the case in the usa as I've heard similar with other countries. Honestly this is something I find sorta dumb as well depending on the situation. In some cases it's mostly in favor of the girl if a supposed rape happens (whether the girl is drunk or the guy is drunk even if both people wanted the sex) to my knowledge because the law is stupid.
That said this seems to be going off topic. Apparently STD's are. Do your part and spread it! The word about the increase and not increasing them yourselves hopefully.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Honestly this is something I find sorta dumb as well depending on the situation.
Could you clarify what exactly is so dumb about not considering "consent" granted when a person is too drunk to think clearly to be legitimate consent?
To jump back onto the STD, the diseases that seem to be spreading fastest are ones that can be cured. Smart thing to do if you're sexually active is get tested regularly, like women get mammograms and men get prostate exams. Especially if your someone who enjoys casual sex. People who prefer closer relationships should check themselves when they think it's about to get serious. Suggest the same to your partner. Get a discount at the same doctors office
Peregrine wrote: .......is too drunk to think clearly to be legitimate consent?
How drunk is too drunk? How it is quantified at some later date? What happens if 1 individual is 'slightly' drunk and the other is high?
Its a good idea in theory but in practice it has all kinds of issues.
As for evidence regarding abstinence sex education the stats speak for themselves.
Among the 48 states in this analysis (all U.S. states except North Dakota and Wyoming), 21 states stressed abstinence-only education in their 2005 state laws and/or policies (level 3), 7 states emphasized abstinence education (level 2), 11 states covered abstinence in the context of comprehensive sex education (level 1), and 9 states did not mention abstinence (level 0) in their state laws or policies (Figure 1). In 2005, level 0 states had an average (± standard error) teen pregnancy rate of 58.78 (±4.96), level 1 states averaged 56.36 (±3.94), level 2 states averaged 61.86 (±3.93), and level 3 states averaged 73.24 (±2.58) teen pregnancies per 1000 girls aged 14–19
flamingkillamajig wrote: Honestly this is something I find sorta dumb as well depending on the situation.
Could you clarify what exactly is so dumb about not considering "consent" granted when a person is too drunk to think clearly to be legitimate consent?
Probably the part where if a woman has sex while she is drunk she can call the man who had sex with her a rapist even if he was equally drunk. Because standards.
Actually I was gonna say she may say she'll have sex with you if she's drunk first. Also I've known some girls that say they're most in the mood for sex when drunk. Man is that the biggest trap of all time. The idea that regardless of whose drunk equals a guy being guilty (for some people I've known at least) is horribly unfair. That said I'm usually not in that situation.
Me (crying hysterically): "At least I have my miniature wargames. They love me and talk to me *cries to self* ."
Silent Puffin? wrote: How drunk is too drunk? How it is quantified at some later date? What happens if 1 individual is 'slightly' drunk and the other is high?
Here's an idea: if there's any doubt then don't have sex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: Probably the part where if a woman has sex while she is drunk she can call the man who had sex with her a rapist even if he was equally drunk. Because standards.
Being drunk as well does not mean that the other person's consent is legitimate. If both people are drunk then neither person's consent is valid. In this case the man is free to return the accusation against the woman, but it doesn't remove his guilt just like you can't say "but I was drunk!" if you hit someone with your car.
Silent Puffin? wrote: How drunk is too drunk? How it is quantified at some later date? What happens if 1 individual is 'slightly' drunk and the other is high?
Here's an idea: if there's any doubt then don't have sex.
That would kill the sex life of way too many French students
Bromsy wrote: Probably the part where if a woman has sex while she is drunk she can call the man who had sex with her a rapist even if he was equally drunk. Because standards.
Being drunk as well does not mean that the other person's consent is legitimate. If both people are drunk then neither person's consent is valid. In this case the man is free to return the accusation against the woman, but it doesn't remove his guilt just like you can't say "but I was drunk!" if you hit someone with your car.
Actually most people seem to think that the only rape scenario is "Man rapes woman". Guilty or not, the man is good for jail in most cases.
Yeah there's always your right hand (or whichever hand you use).
That said when it's already too late and you've done it you could always have people that weren't there judge you in court. Then again if they were there it might be more awkward. Some people do like an audience when they're doing it though. Some strange people.
Yeah when you think about it getting drunk does end in a lot of bad sexual decisions but they're not all considered rape so much as shameful life choices that caused trouble in their own life.
LethalShade wrote: Actually most people seem to think that the only rape scenario is "Man rapes woman".
Which is just plain stupid, and anyone who believes that needs to fix their problems. Men can be the victim of rape, even when the attacker is a woman.
Actually most people seem to think that the only rape scenario is "Man rapes woman". Guilty or not, the man is good for jail in most cases.
I think it's been stated before by a friend. People often see women as the victim regardless of what something is. Supposedly it's a left over from the old days where men worked and women stayed at home. I suppose it was just hard for them to imagine somebody that was taken care of by their man to rape one.
Not saying I think the old ways were good in any sense but that's how they thought.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Also, how if they are legally drunk, they cannot consent
Ehm, no.
No what? If someone is drunk they cannot give consent, period.
To what degree? It's a US thing, but it's as vagues as you can get. To begin with, what is "drunk"? Technically, even after a single shot, you're intoxicated. A single /beer/ gets you intoxicated. Are you drunk then? Is it rape if you have sex with someone who had a single beer? If that's a yes for you, that's not making any sense. If someone is clearly drunk as in not being able to make proper decisions anymore, i.e. really wasted, then of course it's rape as you're taking advantage of someone who clearly doesn't have his mind together.
Another problem is that, assuming the former situation, both people had a few beers, are drunk, but still being able to make proper decisions. Both have consensual sex. Who's the rapist? Both? Are there cases where both get filed for rape? And who's the culprit then? Always the man? Congratulations, you're a sexist.
How would you even be able to /tell/ if someone was drunk? Assuming the same situation, let's say someone had two shots and is intoxicated. She approaches you and hooks you up without you knowing that she drank something. Is that a free "Hah, you're a rapist!" card? Are you supposed to make a blood alcohol test with her beforehand? How would you properly handle such a situation?
What if someone gets purposefully intoxicated to have sex, is that still rape? Can you sue someone for benefiting rape?
It's really confusing to me and get my head around this from a logical point of view. Everything assuming the former case, of course. I mean, come on.
I find the law and the U.S. government funny. If a few things were bad it wouldn't be such a big deal but left and right there seems to be a new way for things to just be insanely stupid.
Anyway off topic of the STD's so we might want to get back. This current topic is deserving of its own thread I'm sure.
I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate."
hotsauceman1 wrote: I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms
hotsauceman1 wrote: I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms
Interestingly, though, a lot of studies have proven quite some time ago that this doesn't make youngsters care. It's wrong to teach it to begin with, though. Teaching your children to be scared of sex is wrong and while yes, it's important to show up the dangers of unprotected sex, it's better to focus on the positive aspects of protected sex. What's more interesting, though, is that despite condoms being as cheap as they have ever been (quality ones, on top of that!) and anonymously ordering them via online retailers is common practice, STDs are rising. There's a big elephant in the room and noone seems to be adressing it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms
Honestly, most of those pictures are wildly exaggerated to make a point. Sure, it's a real photo, but they conveniently omit things like "patient had severe immune system problems and left the disease untreated for years". The reality is that most STDs, in normal people, are either easily treatable and/or not that severe. You certainly don't want to get any of them but it really doesn't help to blow the risks way out of proportion to scare people into not having sex.
Blood alcohol level .08. It's called legal intoxication (the point where the law starts to care how much you've been drinking). Someone that drunk? You'll almost certainly be able to smell it on their breath.
Are there cases where both get filed for rape?
The reality of such situations is that charges rarely if ever are filled because even if something untoward happened, there's no way to prove it unless another party was witness (and even then, at your typical keg party, who isn't drunk?). Such cases almost always fall to hearsay, which isn't legally convincing when people are sober let alone drunk. That's why we have this thing called police investigations. The figure that gak out.
Assuming the same situation, let's say someone had two shots and is intoxicated. She approaches you and hooks you up without you knowing that she drank something. Is that a free "Hah, you're a rapist!" card? Are you supposed to make a blood alcohol test with her beforehand? How would you properly handle such a situation?
When does a tasteful nude cease to be tasteful and become porn? When does pornography become obscenity? People are expected in most societies to exercise proper judgment. That includes knowing that a woman who can barely walk straight, probably isn't mentally capable of agreeing to anything just as much as it includes knowing that the random stranger with a hang over right next to you might have been as wasted as you were (in which case you just might have to live with it). For people who fail to exercise good judgement, well that's why we have laws saying legal intoxication prevents consent and filing false reports is criminal.
It's really confusing to me and get my head around this from a logical point of view.
It's almost like life is this giant cluster feth and we're all stuck living it
What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.
Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.
The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.
Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.
The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.
Well... Seems like this level of decadence is a purely 'Murican problem. You were the ones having those disgusting mini-miss contests, after all.
(Not saying that teenage pregnancy isn't an issue elsewhere, we have quite a lot of them in France too)
A really nasty instance I heard of from my ex was when she was working in the ER and a guy came in with a knife wound in his leg and they discovered he had a baggy wrapped around his penis to catch the drip from his STD.
LethalShade wrote: Going back on STDs, the only thing people need is a bit of common sense, and whatever pieces of self-preservation instinct they can gather.
Looking at history, I think it's safe to say Americans generally don't give a feth about this.... Even going so far back as WW1, when we finally decided to show up and save y'all (you're welcome), the French military offered up a portion of it's assigned "camp girls" (who were regularly tested and treated, etc) to the US forces. The Americans said, "nah bro, we got our Puritan ancestry, our boys are here to fight, not feth!"
We ended up having around 1700 new cases per month of various STDs
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone.
The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.
Well... Seems like this level of decadence is a purely 'Murican problem. You were the ones having those disgusting mini-miss contests, after all.
(Not saying that teenage pregnancy isn't an issue elsewhere, we have quite a lot of them in France too)
Not disagreeing with you but I feel I need to clarify what I meant.
The pregnancy thing is only a secondary issue to the point. It only bothers me, that the majority are on welfare and unwanted by both parents.
The point I was trying to make and failed to was, at 15 he has had 5+ partners at his rate an STD will be in his future and so the question remains how many will he infect? Our Society has no stigma for this other than a slap on the wrist and a "shame on you". In fact many male role models will give him a high five for his conquests rather than to be more cautious.
As for the emotion/relationship thing:
I believe I 3 level of Sex (and this is just purely my belief not official definitions by any means)
Fething
Casual
Intimacy
fething: act of having sex where one or both partners doesn't care if the other person feels pleasure. Its all and only about them. They don't have to be hurting the person, its just only their pleasure they are worried about.
Casual: act of sex where both partners are actively trying to please each other, however no love or deep emotion is truly required.
Intimacy: act of sex where both partners are actively trying to please each other and share a emotional bond that tends to give greater pleasure by enhancing physical into mental.
What else do I need to say, our society tends to advertise sex as pure lust with no consideration of the other person, and tends to belittle anything else.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.
Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.
The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.
Perhaps because TV shows are going after excitement and ratings? Showing a real, functional relationship on TV would honestly be rather boring. I believe the problem here is not the promiscuity of your theoretical construct, but the fact that he (judging by the way you wrote that) has clearly no education on safe sex, as he has made 5 girls pregnant. Possibly mentally handicapped too, if he expects people to be jealous of the fact that his life is ruined.
And also the fact that he's 15, so how the everliving feth would he even manage that?
Peregrine wrote: .......is too drunk to think clearly to be legitimate consent?
How drunk is too drunk? How it is quantified at some later date? What happens if 1 individual is 'slightly' drunk and the other is high?
,
Somewhere between "Totally Sober" and "Unconscious". The latter is good model to start from as the reason consent is impossible is apparent because consent requires you decide "Yes this is a thing I want to do" and are able to communicate it somehow. Given that, the point at which you are "too drunk" is the point at which you can no longer do at least one of two things: Decide "Yes, this is a thing I want to do" or communicate that fact somehow. This means that your ability to give consent is compromised whenever your ability to make decisions is compromised or whenever your ability to communicate is compromised. This probably puts the line somewhere around when your ability to make decisions is compromised to the point where you would make decisions that you wouldn't if you weren't intoxicated. In other words when the intoxication has removed your capacity make informed decisions or when the state of intoxication has become the dominate factor in decision making. That line is going to be fuzzy and different for a lot of people, it may be that a given person at a particular moment during a particular spat of drunkenness may do nothing they wouldn't normally do on pure chance or because they just act with reckless abandon all the time anyway.This means that a universally accurate model or guideline won't be possible to establish. In that case we should establish a model or guideline that best works to protect people, one that finds a reasonable floor at which it is probable someone is making decisions they wouldn't if they weren't intoxicated.
Now I'm hardly an expert on alcohol and physiology, but my understanding is that reasoning starts to be noticeably effected at like 0.07 BAC (someone want to correct me on this?). So something around there might be a reasonable place to draw the line. This is not because everyone or any one individual might be "Too Drunk" at that point, rather simply because it's probable that someone would be.
Verviedi wrote: And also the fact that he's 15, so how the everliving feth would he even manage that?
Why couldn't he? I have worked with Inner city pre-teens and teens most were gang members and the gak they knew would blow some of the most sexually liberal minds. So, 5+ partners never wore a condom what do you think would eventually happen, perhaps he was with each for a short time over the year. I'm unsure that all 5 girls where partners when he turned 15. The article was very vague for all I know it could have been between 14-16. The article was a focus of the teen pregnancy problem not STD but I think it valid in the discussion of STD. High rate of one individual at a young age being encouraged by male role models to have as much sex as possible for nothing more than bragging rights. He's on a path to spread STD's at a high rate.
I agree with you TV sells sex for ratings, are they wrong? Well not if that's what society wants. Doesn't make it ok either.
Blood alcohol level .08. It's called legal intoxication (the point where the law starts to care how much you've been drinking). Someone that drunk? You'll almost certainly be able to smell it on their breath.
I am pretty sure that .08 only applies to driving a motor vehicle, and judgement does gets impaired at lower levels.
My view is if the person has consumed any amount of alcohol its not ok.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.
Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.
The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.
Our Sex Negative culture is the reason for this, not that TV is showing to much sex. Look at japan, they fully embrace that people hve sex, that sex exists and they acknowledge the fact teens have sex. and their teen pregnancy rate is WAY lower than ours.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I remember when my 7th(?) grade teacher showed us was can happen if you contract certain diseases. One showed a penis with black and white coloring, like a cows skin kinda.
That Scared living hell out of me and my classmates. I know I use condoms
Honestly, most of those pictures are wildly exaggerated to make a point. Sure, it's a real photo, but they conveniently omit things like "patient had severe immune system problems and left the disease untreated for years". The reality is that most STDs, in normal people, are either easily treatable and/or not that severe. You certainly don't want to get any of them but it really doesn't help to blow the risks way out of proportion to scare people into not having sex.
It's like the fear mongering in drug education where they say stuff like "If you smoke one joint you will die!" Then when someone does smoke a joint and doesn't die, they can think "they lied about the joint, maybe they lied about other drugs, too?".
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: What do you expect in a sex fueled society on the edge of decadence. Society allows TV and just about everything else to focus on sex and violence because it entertains, our society cares very little for real emotion and relationships.
Not a lot of places in this world were a 15 year boy is placed on a TV show for getting 5 girls pregnant. Not only does he get his 10 minutes of fame, no one truly condemns his acts, cause teens will be teens. At 15 how many more partners will he have and risk getting an STD, and then spread it to each new girl. He has no concept of relationship and probably has no clue how to be in one. Has no feelings of love or at the very least how to connect deeply with someone. He is good at putting Vagina on a pedestal and getting laid. He'd call me jealous and that doesn't matter.
The scariest thing is most people out there do not find anything wrong with what he does.
Our Sex Negative culture is the reason for this, not that TV is showing to much sex. Look at japan, they fully embrace that people hve sex, that sex exists and they acknowledge the fact teens have sex. and their teen pregnancy rate is WAY lower than ours.
Well, Japan has sort of the opposite issue. They've gotten so much fake sex into their culture they've basically lost the desire for the real thing.
Our Sex Negative culture is the reason for this, not that TV is showing to much sex. Look at japan, they fully embrace that people hve sex, that sex exists and they acknowledge the fact teens have sex. and their teen pregnancy rate is WAY lower than ours.
...and on the other hand, Japan is the breeding stock of the most disgusting porn on the planet including drawn child pornography (loli) to be a form of art by many. Two extremes.
My view is if the person has consumed any amount of alcohol its not ok.
This is not a reasonable standard. Not only is it unreasonable to think someone would be impaired to any meaningful extent after 1 drink. It makes no sense in our cultural context.The idea is to set up rules that help protect people, not mandate rigid temperance for the 6-hour period preceding any fething.
My view is if the person has consumed any amount of alcohol its not ok.
This is not a reasonable standard. Not only is it unreasonable to think someone would be impaired to any meaningful extent after 1 drink. It makes no sense in our cultural context.The idea is to set up rules that help protect people, not mandate rigid temperance for the 6-hour period preceding any fething.
The issue is that the amount of drinks to be intoxicated is different from every individual, and you can't tell at what point someone is inebriated or not without a barrage of tests.
If someone has had any amount of alcohol its not worth the risk.
Yes, this rule exists to protect people. You might not like it, but it does protect people. Both from being raped and being accused of rape.
Maybe before anyone has sex they have to go see a doctor (but only one in a centre where they can admit them to hospital), talk through all the horrible things that can result from going through with sex, the woman can get a transvaginal ultrasound scan and the bloke can get a prostate exam, then they get to wait a couple of days to make sure they have thought things through and then come back and have sex while the doctor watches.
Grey Templar wrote: Given how it plays out in the US, its clearly not a useless definition.
Good luck proving that to a court of law, e.g. claiming you were unable to make proper decisions after a single beer. Next, the other person said that he didn't know you drank anything. Or says you said to him that you didn't.
Grey Templar wrote: Given how it plays out in the US, its clearly not a useless definition.
Good luck proving that to a court of law, e.g. claiming you were unable to make proper decisions after a single beer. Next, the other person said that he didn't know you drank anything. Or says you said to him that you didn't.
That's what I was getting at.
"I'm sorry your honor, it wasn't rape because I didn't think he was drunk"
"It wasn't rape, she only had a single shot your honor"
Sorry, thats just pants on head stupid if you think that doesn't change it. Its seriously disgusting dude.
The standard of justice is beyond a shadow of a doubt, Grey.... the idea that a woman who had a beer, and then went home with someone could then have them arrested for rape is full of doubt. Well beyond the legal limit. You would be hard pressed to find a jury of peers that would convict anyone of being incapable of giving consent after one beer, or one shot, barring any extenuating circumstances, like slurred speech or falling over.
I choose to believe a woman, who isn't showing any signs of intoxication and has had a single drink is perfectly capable of making her own decisions.
No, its beyond reasonable doubt. Not a shadow of a doubt.
The number of drinks is irrelevant in light of the fact that there was alcohol involved. Both parties could be lying. What is more likely? That someone only had one beer and is now accusing someone of raping them OR that the person was in fact intoxicated and got taken advantage of?
I don't disagree that someone could be sober after one beer and give consent then cry rape later when they decided after the fact they didn't like what happened, but thats not as likely as they did in fact get taken advantage of.
Signs of intoxication aren't always true or exact. People can be totally blacked out and appear fully conscious. Judgement also gets impaired before motor functions do, and not everyone gets their motor functions impaired to the same level. Someone can be totally jacked up and only appear to be slightly tipsy. Likewise, some people get effected by alcohol way faster on fewer drinks.
The law exists because there are people who seek to take advantage of other people when they are in a vulnerable state. It happens. It happens a lot. Colleges in particular field these incidents annually. "She/he was drunk" is not an excuse for taking advantage of them.
Whether or not a crime was committed, or if two people got drunk and carried away, is something for police to figure out. That's why we have police. Laws do no exist in a vacuum absent human reason.
This law has existed for a long time, and no matter how much certain people try to pretend, there is not a rampant epidemic of false rape accusations coming from people who did something dumb and want the law to make it better.
The law exists because there are people who seek to take advantage of other people when they are in a vulnerable state. It happens. It happens a lot. Colleges in particular field these incidents annually. "She/he was drunk" is not an excuse for taking advantage of them.
Whether or not a crime was committed, or if two people got drunk and carried away, is something for police to figure out. That's why we have police. Laws do no exist in a vacuum absent human reason.
This law has existed for a long time, and no matter how much certain people try to pretend, there is not a rampant epidemic of false rape accusations coming from people who did something dumb and want the law to make it better.
^ This right here.
Sorry, folks, but if you require your sexual conquests to be intoxicated (whether via alcohol or drugs) in order for you to score? You might be a rapist. In fact, you are a rapist.
Definitely agree with the line about police should be handling these things. I hate campus cops. From personal experience on three different campuses, the school doesn't give a damn who was right and who was wrong, who was hurt and who wasn't. it just wants the problem to go away with as little controversy as possible, and that usually involves one of two things;
Proclaim that nothing happened and move on.
Someone gets arbitrarily punished because it is deemed expedient.
EDIT: And of course, this is all part of the related issue of campus drinking, which schools often only pretend to do something about.
Sorry, thats just pants on head stupid if you think that doesn't change it. Its seriously disgusting dude.
How do you prove it? Your "opinion" doesn't matter here. If it comes to a court of law, how do you prove that someone's guilty? In most cases, it's a he said - she said that doesn't go anywhere. There are very clear cases where people are drunk beyond all doubts, but in a ton of cases, I bet that it ain't that clear.
If you tried to sue someone for rape after someone had a single beer, claiming that he was no longer able to willingly take actions, if I was the other side's lawyer, I'd laugh at your face and see your client waste money.
Sigvatr wrote: How do you prove it? Your "opinion" doesn't matter here. If it comes to a court of law, how do you prove that someone's guilty? In most cases, it's a he said - she said that doesn't go anywhere. There are very clear cases where people are drunk beyond all doubts, but in a ton of cases, I bet that it ain't that clear.
Witnesses would be the primary source of evidence. Many, if not most, of these cases involve drinking in public.
Also, I think you're confusing two different things here: criminal law and what it means to be a good person. There are a lot of horrible things you can do that probably won't get a criminal conviction, but the fact that you don't spend a few decades in prison doesn't mean that you did the right thing. Drawing the line at "not drunk at all" is a pretty good idea if you care about more than just whether or not you can get away with something.
If you tried to sue someone for rape after someone had a single beer, claiming that he was no longer able to willingly take actions, if I was the other side's lawyer, I'd laugh at your face.
Well yes, but nobody here is claiming that you'd win that suit.
PS: it's very important to understand the difference between civil trials and criminal trials. Sentencing, the burden of proof, etc, are all very different. And, very importantly, in criminal trials it is the state on the other side, not the accuser.
Grey Templar wrote: No, its beyond reasonable doubt. Not a shadow of a doubt.
The number of drinks is irrelevant in light of the fact that there was alcohol involved. Both parties could be lying. What is more likely? That someone only had one beer and is now accusing someone of raping them OR that the person was in fact intoxicated and got taken advantage of?
I don't disagree that someone could be sober after one beer and give consent then cry rape later when they decided after the fact they didn't like what happened, but thats not as likely as they did in fact get taken advantage of.
Signs of intoxication aren't always true or exact. People can be totally blacked out and appear fully conscious. Judgement also gets impaired before motor functions do, and not everyone gets their motor functions impaired to the same level. Someone can be totally jacked up and only appear to be slightly tipsy. Likewise, some people get effected by alcohol way faster on fewer drinks.
Okay, challenge for you- if one beer counts as "too drunk", what do you do when both parties have had something to drink? Do we start handing out verdicts of "Mutual Rape"? Does having had one beer provide an ironclad defence (Since obviously you are no longer able to consent to sex either).
Not saying that there is no such thing as "too drunk", just saying that a standard of one-and-done is way to simple for this issue.
Grey Templar wrote: No, its beyond reasonable doubt. Not a shadow of a doubt.
The number of drinks is irrelevant in light of the fact that there was alcohol involved. Both parties could be lying. What is more likely? That someone only had one beer and is now accusing someone of raping them OR that the person was in fact intoxicated and got taken advantage of?
I don't disagree that someone could be sober after one beer and give consent then cry rape later when they decided after the fact they didn't like what happened, but thats not as likely as they did in fact get taken advantage of.
Signs of intoxication aren't always true or exact. People can be totally blacked out and appear fully conscious. Judgement also gets impaired before motor functions do, and not everyone gets their motor functions impaired to the same level. Someone can be totally jacked up and only appear to be slightly tipsy. Likewise, some people get effected by alcohol way faster on fewer drinks.
Okay, challenge for you- if one beer counts as "too drunk", what do you do when both parties have had something to drink? Do we start handing out verdicts of "Mutual Rape"? Does having had one beer provide an ironclad defence (Since obviously you are no longer able to consent to sex either).
Not saying that there is no such thing as "too drunk", just saying that a standard of one-and-done is way to simple for this issue.
The state of California requires audible, direct consent. You are literally required to ask and receive a clear "Yes". Now, it's not as lame as "Can we feth now? Y/N"... there's a bunch of "instructional videos" out there for pointers and guidelines, and such.
I have to say, though, that, if you play your cards right? Those Q&A sessions can get... pretty hot.
Okay, challenge for you- if one beer counts as "too drunk", what do you do when both parties have had something to drink? Do we start handing out verdicts of "Mutual Rape"? Does having had one beer provide an ironclad defence (Since obviously you are no longer able to consent to sex either).
At this point, it becomes a wild race of "Who can run to the next police station the fastest?". The winner is the victim, loser is the rapist.
@GreyTemplar: Just to reiterate on my previous post: we can agree on the law being there being good. What I am getting to is going straight into the waters - and test its borders. Law is good and well, but when and how could you possibly claim it? And when /should/ you be able to do so? If you go by the 1-drink rule, you got an extremely easily exploitable law and thus it would never have the slightest chance of going through.
It very much depends on the other evidence. I doubt anyone is going to claim they were intoxicated after only one beer, but they potentially could. Its then up to the jury to determine if that is what happened or not.
Gitzbitah wrote: The standard of justice is beyond a shadow of a doubt, Grey.... the idea that a woman who had a beer, and then went home with someone could then have them arrested for rape is full of doubt. Well beyond the legal limit. You would be hard pressed to find a jury of peers that would convict anyone of being incapable of giving consent after one beer, or one shot, barring any extenuating circumstances, like slurred speech or falling over.
I choose to believe a woman, who isn't showing any signs of intoxication and has had a single drink is perfectly capable of making her own decisions.
California will make that the legal standard within five years. Its already the legal standard in California universities BY LAW for potential expulsion proceedings.
Also speaking of the rise of STD's, has anyone seen Kronk lately?
Someone mentions STDs again and Alpharius turns up.
COINCIDENCE?!
It really isn't a surprise. Casual sex is as normal and as often as it has ever been. Tinder and its likes, online dating sites, Facebook etc. It has never been as easy to get laid as it is nowadays.If we just assume the same % of people that care about condoms throughout the times, it's logical to assume that the STD spread is higher.
Sigvatr wrote: Someone mentions STDs again and Alpharius turns up.
COINCIDENCE?!
Indeed....
It really isn't a surprise. Casual sex is as normal and as often as it has ever been. Tinder and its likes, online dating sites, Facebook etc. It has never been as easy to get laid as it is nowadays.If we just assume the same % of people that care about condoms throughout the times, it's logical to assume that the STD spread is higher.
