That’s not just lying, that’s lying that created HIV infections if people believed it.

Under the republican hegemony we’ve seen Sex Education all but annhilated in public education. Just the other night a friend was saying how her teen sister’s contemporaries thought you couldn’t get STIs from oral sex. Or that if you use douches you can prevent pregnancy. It’s an appalling lack of basic biological knowledge.

Teaching kids about the basics of sex teaches them self-respect and helps them form perspective (you are pretty unlikely to marry your 15 year-old love) about relationships.

I think we’re going to see more of the impact of gutting Sex Ed in the years to come.

Issac has a point. Without condoms, the responsibility of birth control is entirely on the woman.

With all the responsibility placed away from the man, it sounds like he could have an “engagement ring” with several women.

What’s stupid is trusting that kids are responsible, have self-control or are actually trustworthy. The chances of anyone thinking straight with the amount of hormones pumping through the average adolescent in the throws of passion is quite small. Hell even without the massive dose of hormones, adults have problems with self-control.

Given the number of pregnancies and prevalence of STDs among teens, I personally don’t trust them to have sex at all.

This is why if I have kids, I will do everything in my power to make sure they are the ultimate social pariahs. Oh they’ll be captain of the chess club, wear the most unflattering clothes and have the most pronounced braces known to man. If they date before they’re 18, it will only be with the second most socially awkward kid at school (after them). I will probably show up to school in dorky outfits, keep the house a disaster area and ride a unicycle to school occasionally while making sure everyone knows whose parent I am.

Not that I’ve thought any of this through of course…

I figured Bush would get blamed for this sooner or later. I agree that sex ed should be taught in school. At the same time, however, there’s a need for parents to act like, well, parents and talk to their kids about the birds and the bees. You can’t blame the government for poor parenting.

At least this means a man trusts his woman enough to relinquish all power and let her make reproductive decisions in their relationship.

…not always a good thing. It should be mutual.

Seriously though, I agree all the way up there @20. There’s a lot of mis-information and plain non-information that’s fed to our kids about sex. History has proven that they’re going to have it. The more ‘mysterious’ you make it, the more it calls to them. That’s why oral sex is the new handshake in high schools… because society still walks on eggshells when it comes to sex.

As someone who never got the talk, I advise any would-be parents out there to HAVE THE TALK, or take them to “Spring Awakening” or something. As innocent and precious as you want your kids to remain, their sex parts are going to get all tingly eventually and they’re going to do something about it.

Between them and the Vatican, there’s an awful lot of stupid going on…

Oooh ooh – impeachment here we come!

GWB knocks up hundreds of teenage ignoramuses nationwide

Child support expenses rapidly draining Bush family coffers

I’m not Catholic, but my fiancée is, and when we went to pre cana, they (somewhat paradoxically) drilled it into us that, while kids are a great thing, they can never hold a marriage together, and you shouldn’t base decisions on them. If you make decisions based on your spouse, the benefits will be seen by your kids as well.

This of course has nothing to do with contraception/etc but I think having a strong family will also mean being able to talk more openly about things like sex and STDs and other issues.

No, the Bush family coffers won’t be drained. It’ll be all our coffers- as we have to figure out a way to pay for healthcare, education and food for all the little ones soon to be born out of wedlock.

You think Social Security is in the shitter now? Just wait until we have another population explosion caused by the lack of sex education in schools.

I miss the good old days when AIDS scared everyone enough to force sex ed to kids as young as 1st grade. . .

You also say, “One day when I’m married, my wife will know that she’s the only woman I’ve ever been with. That will mean a lot to her.” Just realize that there are many other people who feel the opposite. When I married my husband I was very glad we both had many relationships before. We learned so much about what we wanted from a relationship and how to make a relationship successful.

I realize these are just my opinions as well. How someone handles sex and relationships is a very personal thing and there is no “one path” for everyone.

###

sure, i can understand the impulse on some level. it’s about trust, love, bla bla bla. he even says to only have unprotected sex after both have been tested birth-control is in play. ok, fine. let me look beyond the rather immature impulse to flaunt your sex around publicly to the daytime listening audience of NPR. nothing wrong with flaunting your sex, but talking like you’re a pro like that just comes across as… well… not so humble.

so, my problems with this: condoms are a form of birth-control. the only form operating on the male end of things these days. unless you have a latex allergy, there’s not much harm a condom can do to you. and they work. then look at the other side of things – female brith-control (pills, shots, patches, as I believe he says). these, as they are mostly (all?) hormonal, can have a HUGE impact on the woman taking them. why then, i would ask this teen, do women have to bear the full burden of the practice of sexual activity? having to stick to a regiment of daily pill-takings, monthly shots, going to the clinic or the pharmacy. sure, they could “do it together,” but it isn’t his body. this seems incredibly unfair.

on another, different side of things, what about people with STIs? can they not be engaged? would they not be considered “normal” enough to be in this new codified form of relationships/love? pardon me for taking this out to its limits, but this is an idiotic piece of “youth opinion.” it makes me ashamed to be a youth. if my generation’s sexual politics are headed in this direction of (not so new) (hetero-)normalizing, phalo-dominance, i’m very ashamed.

And, yes, the decision to throw away the condoms is a big decision, with much symbolic weight behind it. It is two people saying to each other, “You are the one. Once we have both been checked and decided on birth control, we trust each other enough to make this step.”

Who the hell are all you people relying on a condom to prevent pregnancy? Every sane healthy menstruating woman who doesn’t want to get pregnant is “on the pill” (i.e. hormonal contraceptive). In addition to all casual sex requiring the use of a condom because of the risk of STDs.

I didn’t listen to the NPR story, but it seemed obvious to me that the point is that getting tested together and trusting each other to have a monogamous relationship, and thus able to have sex without a condom (but women still on the pill) is about as “steady” as a relationship as any young (i.e. under 35 years old) person is going to have in this modern world — hence analogous to what the “old timers” called “engagement”. (Because, yes, risking the trust and commitment required to have sex safely without a condom is as serious now as people used to treat engagement way back when.)

Is that really so baffling? This seems completely in line with the “paranoid” 90s sex culture I’m familiar with.

The segment suggests that if barebacking is the new engagement ring, getting tested together, and making a joint decision about alternate birth-control is the new “getting down on one knee”

And THAT? That’s smart. That’s committing to monogamy by practical, realistic, and well informed means. That’s much brighter and more thoughtful than the exchange of shiny things

It’s about the conservatives in this country who rail against even basic sexual education. They take histrionic, and often hyperbolic stories and craft terrifying images out of them. Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk have made millions for decades selling this fear.

Say a teacher talked about oral sex in a class, is she having a frank discussion or “advocating deviant sexual practices”? It’s a game and kids are losing.

Frank, straightforward talk about sexuality shouldn’t be a politicized issue at all.

As for parents ‘doing their job’ many, if not most, do. But many more are emberassed, or nervous or feel weird about talking to their kids about sex. Having a trained sex educator giving simple, clear and direct answers to young adults questions can wipe away all that weirdness and dispense good public health information.

Those who object on religious or philosophical grounds, I understand and of course respect their right to parent as they see fit.

Though I have to wonder, would you rather your child hear about sexuality from someone who can provide sound answers or have your kids going online to let the internet’s wide world of porn ‘teach’ them?

Everyone is focusing on how this is dangerous because of STDs. That is not the real issue. The real issue is that people are beginning to push the definition of commitment far from where true definition of commitment really is.

One day, there will be an article discussing how “Side-by-Side Burial is the New Engagement Ring”. Whatever happened to lifetime commitment to one person, from marriage to death?