Originally Posted by Keyori (Post 1765563230)

I found Dr. Diamond's credentials, by the way.


Dr. Diamond makes a living doing research and contributing to the scientific community.

Compared to Dr. Grossman:

Dr. Grossman makes a living writing books and scheduling to speak about the evils of comprehensive sex ed.

I think it should be a little more obvious who should be talking on the subject of gender.

I also find it interesting that Dr. Grossman has named a pet after a psychotic drug. I wonder how much she makes from Eli Lilly...

Originally Posted by Keyori (Post 1765563512)

What is there to sugar coat about comprehensive sex ed? That it's proven more effective than abstinence only education?

And she is still not qualified, her MD is in psychology, not biology or gynecology or neonatology or anything like that. There are dozens of specializations that would make her more qualified to talk about how "comprehensive sex ed is made up of junk science," but that's not her specialty, and she is no more qualified as a reference than you or I.

It's no different than asking your orthodontist for advice about prenatal care. She's simply not qualified.

Also an interesting quote from Dr. Grossman's own website:


Wow. Just wow. You have to have a rocketship to be able to jump to conclusions like that. How does "opposites" honestly NOT suggest polarization?

Originally Posted by Keyori (Post 1765564638)

See, the problem is that abstinence-only education doesn't teach about std's. It teaches that "you can't get std's by abstaining" (which isn't even completely true--take herpes, for example). That's not teaching anything about std's.

So I agree, there's no harm in learning more about STD's, I try to learn a lot about them even though I'm in an extremely low-risk group (being monogamous and all), but that's not what this woman wants.

And no, just because her unsupported opinions might be right is not reason enough to do what she says we should. If I had the opinion that there was air in space and we shouldn't spend so much money on space suits for astronauts, and I happened to have a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering, which is kindof related to Astrophysics, should you just go with it since there might be a chance I'm right?

(by the way, there technically is air in space, but the air molecules are spaced so far apart that your lungs wouldn't be able to get enough of it and you'd die of asphyxia, and this is not taking the effects of the vacuum into consideration either, which would implode your lungs as your body tries to de-pressurize to near-vacuum pressure)

Originally Posted by Shalandriel (Post 1765565410)

Just gonna add something. Maybe dewey became more firm in his belief after reading this womans book. It's understandable that someone would become more comfortable when they read a published work. Or even if a few of his ideas matched with hers, that may have made him believe whatever else she was saying. Also, since it seems to be the only book he has read on the subject, it wouldn't be that big of a surprise. Many people believe that since it's published, it's true. Just a thought.

Also, they can't get that specific in school, that's going past what they're allowed to teach dewey. You've no idea how many parents would be in an uproar if teachers were giving kids a specific number of partners they can have. They might as well be saying it's ok to have more than one; parents woudn't be happy. This brings up the rushing into sex thing again. Honestly, if you don't know how many partners it's safe to sleep with (though it honestly doesn't matter if you're all clean), then you shouldn't be having sex. Unfortunately, no kids are going to go and get tested, they never think it could happen to them. Also, when I went to school all STDs were covered, HPV and AIDS extensively.

Originally Posted by Shalandriel (Post 1765584515)

I agree, abstinence doesn't help anyone. I personally think comprehensive deters kids from having it more so anyways.

Well, by law now every school must teach comprehensive sex ed I believe. It's that way in my state at least.

Originally Posted by Keyori (Post 1765570046)

As off-topic as this is, I'm going to try to tie it back to abortion.

I've participated in a public school system that taught comprehensive (i.e. not abstinence-only) sex education.

The curriculum:
Anatomy of genitalia.
Puberty and developmental changes in hormones.
How sexual activity can affect a woman's hormones.
Hormonal differences between males and females.
Emphasized that abstinence is the only true way to not get pregnant.
Multiple types of birth control (e.g. barrier, chemical, surgery) is the most effective way to not get pregnant if you are sexually active.
Being symptom-free does not mean disease-free.
Condoms are the only method that can help prevent the spread of STD's but are not completely effective.
Oral and anal sex can still spread STD's.
The "rhythm" and "family planning" methods are the least effective at preventing pregnancy.
Fewer partners will result in lower chances of exposing yourself to STD's, and for women, will result in a lower risk of cervical cancer.
How to perform breast exams (for women).
How to perform testicular exams (for men).
A general overview of AIDS and HIV (we even had a speaker visit who had AIDS).
A gendeal overview of the symptoms, incubation periods, and permanency of other STD's.

(pregnancy and its stages were covered in middle school--this is the high school curriculum)

Unfortunately, this model is not funded by the government. The only things I think are really missing are "What do you do if you're pregnant," the morning-after pill, and data on adoption and information on abortion.

So, what else would you suggest in addition to this model?

By the way, I'd like to emphasize that this kind of education is what Dr. Grossman DOES NOT want. She wants to teach "no sex before marriage" and "don't ever have abortions" and "sex is not normal and should not be encouraged" and "church is better for you than sex." That kind of thinking doesn't help anyone.

Originally Posted by PlannedParenthood.org

About three million American women and men become infected with chlamydia every year

Originally Posted by deweyduquesne (Post 1765596110)

And actually, logistically speaking, that kind of thinking DOES help. it's simple. The majority of people that dont have sex, dont get stds. and if you're not having sex, that means ALOT of people will not be contracting chlamydia(just to name one) . I would say that make's it a valid argument

Originally Posted by Fabby (Post 1765596645)

Originally Posted by Divacita (Post 1765596908)

Teenagers are gonna have sex whether you tell them not to. As for abortion, I am pro-life to a point anything after 8 weeks is not for me. But I think that with all the horrible parents killing or abandoning their children then they should abort before they can harm the child after it has had a taste of life. Like that Mother who killed her child in Florida & a few other Mothers who kill their children for selfish reasons. I'm a mother & even tough I had my son at a young age I took the responsibility to raise him. That is my price to having a child & I readily accepted it even though I could not do the things A normal Teenager did because of it.

Originally Posted by deweyduquesne (Post 1765596984)

i understand what you and i almost agree. i feel that abandoning a child is still better than ever giving it the chance to live.

Originally Posted by deweyduquesne (Post 1765596673)

oh no, you're defintely right and i agree with u. but telling them that sex is safe isnt logical either. for example, you tell a kid that if he puts pads on, he wont get cuts and scrapes there. that's safe. but tell a kid that if he puts a condom on and he wont get stds(from having sex) and u'd be a liar. how can u call that safe? the only TRUE safe sex, is cyber sex lol. and thats only if u dont do something stupid lol. I know this is very hypocritical of me to say since I am sexually active and have no regrets about it, I just like to play devil's advocate when I can.

Originally Posted by deweyduquesne (Post 1765596984)

@Fabby- sorry to bring up something from probably 2 days ago, but u earlier asked why we should put the feelings of a fetus before yours(paraphrasing i know) but i have a question. im curious but if u were pregnant, would there be a time period in it that u would say "nope, it's too late, it's too developed. i have to have it now" or would u have the surgery done anywhere as long as u were still pregnant

Originally Posted by MollyJean (Post 1765603303)

It sounds to me like you want a perfect system. Well you can't have one.

Which is worse. Telling a teenager not to have sex and not giving them a reason, or doing your best to tell them why sex is a bad idea, REASONS they should wait til they are with a single person, and information for if they decide they do want to have sex?

Which is better? A teenager having sex and having no idea what a condom is, because, quite frankly, they're not going to listen when you say "don't have sex" eith either kind of education system. Or a teenager having sex, knowing what a condom is, knowing it has a 98% chance of stopping conception if used properly (Yes, they give you %s in sex ed, like birth control is only 99.8% effective.), KNOWING how to USE it, because that's part of sex education, and knowing what to do if something fails?

Which is more effective? As I said, there are no perfect systems. They do the best they can. Sex education is giving a teenager as much information as they can. Abstinence Education is just saying "don't do it or you'll go to hell" And leaving it at that. I personally find that not only dangerous, but out right harmful to a child. If you deny them ANY kind of information it's akin to child abuse.

And I have never heard of anyone being taught "sex is safe" in a sex ed class. Now I HAVE heard of abstinence education teachers claiming that if you wait til you are married, you run no risk of getting STDs. And that's a lie. You might be waiting, but that doesn't mean your partner is. And there are other ways to catch and STD that Abstinence education never covers, because they want children to think they are only transmited through sex. It's a fear tactic.

A week after we moved into our new home, I called the local high school to ask if they taught sex ed or abstinence only. My daughter wasn't even in kindergarten yet. I refuse to let her to go a school where sex ed isn't even a choice.



I know this isn't directed at me, but I think it's a ridiculous question and I'm going to point it out.

First off, there is no state in the US that allows standard abortions after 18 weeks. In fact, a lot of states say 12 or 16 weeks, 18 is the max. So ALL women have a time period in which they have to decide if they're going to get the abortion or keep the fetus. If someone says they're doing it after that point, they're breaking the law, and not doing it in a legal facility. But I have a feeling you had no idea this is how the law works.

The ONLY way you can get an abortion after this time period is if 2 doctors or a doctor and a judge agree that you HAVE to have it. And in such cases, in almost every state, a second doctor HAS to be in the room during abortions after 18 weeks because there is a greater chance that the fetus will be viable and the doctor is there to attempt to salvage the fetus if it is. This is US law.

And it's there for a reason. At about 20 weeks the fetus is developed enough that is has a small percent chance of living outside the womb. This chance might only be 10%, but even that is enough to attempt saving a viable fetus.

Originally Posted by deweyduquesne (Post 1765604401)

thats fine, point it out. u know much more about this than i do. but the point im tryin to get at is that even tho it's not concrete that a baby can "feel" at a certain point in it's development, web sites claim that certain things are"sensitive". it seems to be that even tho they never actually say it, it can be inferred that these babies can feel. here is the site i am quoting: http://www.abortiontv.com/Growth/How...BabiesGrow.htm

Originally Posted by Philomel (Post 1765598327)

Come now, Kris. You know women forfeit personhood when they get preggers.

Originally Posted by Kris (Post 1765604476)

WARNING
EXTREMELY BIASED WEBSITE