Abstinance Only Education Study - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Abstinance Only Education Study

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby DK » Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:15 pm

Average age is 14.9????

Man was I a slacker. :-D
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby knapplc » Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:48 pm

DK wrote:Average age is 14.9????

Man was I a slacker. :-D


I was 18. I could have waited a bit longer but I was running the risk of exploding. :-o
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby ironman » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:07 pm

knapplc wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:I agree completely, Knapp. I think parents should take an active role in teaching their children regardless of the topic, but I'd put the onus on the schools as I mentioned above because I doubt many parents are qualified to speak with any authority regarding the medical side of STDs. And unfortunately it's probably the same for the anatomical aspect of sex ed.


Right. I'm certainly not going to claim that I know all there is to know about STDs, nor will almost any parent short of actual teachers/medical field people. The school plays a huge role in the education - giving proper facts, data, etc. The most I can do is talk to her about sex, how she should NEVER EVER EVER have sex, and that if she touches a boy her arms will fall off. :-D


My daughter is only 18 months old, but I've already got plans to start my large knife collection. It will be proudly on display whenever she brings a new boyfriend home. }:-)
Image
Wendigo's Camaro
ironman
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 4901
(Past Year: 94)
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dubuque

Postby DK » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:09 pm

ironman wrote:
knapplc wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:I agree completely, Knapp. I think parents should take an active role in teaching their children regardless of the topic, but I'd put the onus on the schools as I mentioned above because I doubt many parents are qualified to speak with any authority regarding the medical side of STDs. And unfortunately it's probably the same for the anatomical aspect of sex ed.


Right. I'm certainly not going to claim that I know all there is to know about STDs, nor will almost any parent short of actual teachers/medical field people. The school plays a huge role in the education - giving proper facts, data, etc. The most I can do is talk to her about sex, how she should NEVER EVER EVER have sex, and that if she touches a boy her arms will fall off. :-D


My daughter is only 18 months old, but I've already got plans to start my large knife collection. It will be proudly on display whenever she brings a new boyfriend home. }:-)


I wouldn't give the boy any ideas about using a "large knife" in reference to your daughter, ironman. :D

A couple rifles should do.
"It's only fair. You shoot off, so do I."
:-b
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby knapplc » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:18 pm

ironman wrote:
knapplc wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:I agree completely, Knapp. I think parents should take an active role in teaching their children regardless of the topic, but I'd put the onus on the schools as I mentioned above because I doubt many parents are qualified to speak with any authority regarding the medical side of STDs. And unfortunately it's probably the same for the anatomical aspect of sex ed.


Right. I'm certainly not going to claim that I know all there is to know about STDs, nor will almost any parent short of actual teachers/medical field people. The school plays a huge role in the education - giving proper facts, data, etc. The most I can do is talk to her about sex, how she should NEVER EVER EVER have sex, and that if she touches a boy her arms will fall off. :-D


My daughter is only 18 months old, but I've already got plans to start my large knife collection. It will be proudly on display whenever she brings a new boyfriend home. }:-)

A guy I used to work with had a rule concerning his daughter. She could have boys visit her at home. They had to stay in the driveway, in full view the whole time. She was allowed to talk to them outside of their car in the driveway.

Ken, my friend, would sit on his porch sharpening his axe the whole time they were talking. He only had to do this a couple of times before the local boys got the hint, and according to Ken she never had any problems dating.

I rather like that idea. :-b ;-D
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby chadlincoln » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:20 pm

ironman wrote:
knapplc wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:I agree completely, Knapp. I think parents should take an active role in teaching their children regardless of the topic, but I'd put the onus on the schools as I mentioned above because I doubt many parents are qualified to speak with any authority regarding the medical side of STDs. And unfortunately it's probably the same for the anatomical aspect of sex ed.


Right. I'm certainly not going to claim that I know all there is to know about STDs, nor will almost any parent short of actual teachers/medical field people. The school plays a huge role in the education - giving proper facts, data, etc. The most I can do is talk to her about sex, how she should NEVER EVER EVER have sex, and that if she touches a boy her arms will fall off. :-D


My daughter is only 18 months old, but I've already got plans to start my large knife collection. It will be proudly on display whenever she brings a new boyfriend home. }:-)
8 SIMPLE RULES FOR DATING MY DAUGHTER
by: W. Bruce Cameron


Rule One: If you pull into my driveway and honk you'd better be delivering a package, because you're sure not picking anything up.

Rule Two: You do not touch my daughter in front of me. You may glance at her, so long as you do not peer at anything below her neck. If you cannot keep your eyes or hands off my daughter's body, I will remove them.

Rule Three: I am aware that it is considered fashionable for boys your age to wear their trousers so loosely that they appear to be falling off their hips. Please don't take this as an insult, but you and all of your friends are complete idiots. Still, I want to be fair and open minded about this issue, so I propose this compromise: You may come to the door with your underwear showing and your pants ten sizes too big, and I will object. However, in order to ensure that your clothes do not, in fact, come off during the course of your date with my daughter, I will take my electric nail gun and fasten your trousers securely in place to your waist.

Rule Four: I'm sure you've been told that in today's world, sex without utilizing a "barrier method" of some kind will kill you. Let me elaborate: when it comes to sex, I am the barrier, and I will kill you.

Rule Five: In order for us to get to know each other, we should talk about sports, politics, and other issues of the day. Please do not do this. The only information I require from you is an indication of when you expect to have my daughter safely back at my house, and the only word I need from you on this subject is "early."

Rule Six: I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little girl, you will continue to date her until she is finished with you. If you make her cry, I will make you cry.

Rule Seven: As you stand in my front hallway, waiting for my daughter to appear, and more than an hour goes by, do not sigh and fidget. If you want to be on time for the movie, you should not be dating. My daughter is putting on her makeup, a process that can take longer than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. Instead of just standing there, why don't you do something useful, like changing the oil in my car?

Rule Eight: The following places are not appropriate for a date with my daughter: Places where there are beds, sofas, or anything softer than a wooden stool. Places where there are no parents, policemen, or nuns within eyesight. Places where there is darkness. Places where there is dancing, holding hands, or happiness. Places where the ambient temperature is warm enough to induce my daughter to wear shorts, tank tops, midriff T-shirts, or anything other than overalls, a sweater, and a goose down parka zipped up to her throat. Movies with a strong romance or sexual theme are to be avoided; movies which feature chain saws are okay. Hockey games are okay. Old folks homes are better.
7/26 - Cafe goes down:

General Error
SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ]
Table './cafe_forums/baseball_sessions' is marked as crashed and should be repaired [145]
An sql error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact an administrator if this problem persists.
chadlincoln
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 10983
Joined: 20 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Bleachers at Wrigley Field

Postby Coppermine » Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:27 pm

chadlincoln wrote:Rule Four: I'm sure you've been told that in today's world, sex without utilizing a "barrier method" of some kind will kill you. Let me elaborate: when it comes to sex, I am the barrier, and I will kill you.


If that's not safe sex, I don't know what is... :-D
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Re: Abstinance Only Education Study

Postby Half Massed » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:41 pm

Coppermine wrote:I've long held that abstinence-only perhaps as the opposite effect on teens; that without knowledge of proper ways of protecting themselves, that it could actually lead to an increase in teen pregnancy. This of course was debunked not long ago with a study that indicated that not only is teen pregnancy at a 10-year low, but so is teenage drug use and violence.


What was the sample group for this study? I don't doubt that teen pregnancy has gone down in places where real sex education is actually being taught, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have risen in areas where abstinence-only education has been taught exclusively. Taking a polling of the entire U.S. does not answer the question of whether abstinence-only sex ed has adverse effects.

It would make sense if it did. After all, if you don't know what you're doing or what not to do, it's a lot easier to accidentally get somebody pregnant.
Image
Half Massed
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 4084
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Busting ghosts

Re: Abstinance Only Education Study

Postby Coppermine » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:48 pm

Half Massed wrote:
Coppermine wrote:I've long held that abstinence-only perhaps as the opposite effect on teens; that without knowledge of proper ways of protecting themselves, that it could actually lead to an increase in teen pregnancy. This of course was debunked not long ago with a study that indicated that not only is teen pregnancy at a 10-year low, but so is teenage drug use and violence.


What was the sample group for this study? I don't doubt that teen pregnancy has gone down in places where real sex education is actually being taught, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have risen in areas where abstinence-only education has been taught exclusively. Taking a polling of the entire U.S. does not answer the question of whether abstinence-only sex ed has adverse effects.

It would make sense if it did. After all, if you don't know what you're doing or what not to do, it's a lot easier to accidentally get somebody pregnant.


I think teenagers have a lot of ways of gathering information these days. Some may be good or bad, but I think there is at least an openness about safe-sex and pregnancy that was not prevalent 40 years ago. I believe the sampling was random and wide spread; abstinence-only did not result in an increase in sexual activity, nor a decrease. It simply has no effect which implies 2 things:

1.) Abstinence only ed in schools is worthless
2.) Teens are not given enough credit for making decisions without us force feeding it to them

At least in my opinion; the perception is that teenagers are dumb animals that if not taught right from wrong, will ultimately do wrong. I know that low-income areas are hit much harder with teen pregnancy, but low-income areas also have higher pregnancy rates in general.

Besides, from the random sample, i think the experiment was to determine if students receiving abstinence only education had less sex. They do not.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Re: Abstinance Only Education Study

Postby Half Massed » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:58 pm

Coppermine wrote:
Half Massed wrote:
Coppermine wrote:I've long held that abstinence-only perhaps as the opposite effect on teens; that without knowledge of proper ways of protecting themselves, that it could actually lead to an increase in teen pregnancy. This of course was debunked not long ago with a study that indicated that not only is teen pregnancy at a 10-year low, but so is teenage drug use and violence.


What was the sample group for this study? I don't doubt that teen pregnancy has gone down in places where real sex education is actually being taught, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have risen in areas where abstinence-only education has been taught exclusively. Taking a polling of the entire U.S. does not answer the question of whether abstinence-only sex ed has adverse effects.

It would make sense if it did. After all, if you don't know what you're doing or what not to do, it's a lot easier to accidentally get somebody pregnant.


I think teenagers have a lot of ways of gathering information these days. Some may be good or bad, but I think there is at least an openness about safe-sex and pregnancy that was not prevalent 40 years ago. I believe the sampling was random and wide spread; abstinence-only did not result in an increase in sexual activity, nor a decrease. It simply has no effect which implies 2 things:

1.) Abstinence only ed in schools is worthless
2.) Teens are not given enough credit for making decisions without us force feeding it to them

At least in my opinion; the perception is that teenagers are dumb animals that if not taught right from wrong, will ultimately do wrong. I know that low-income areas are hit much harder with teen pregnancy, but low-income areas also have higher pregnancy rates in general.

Besides, from the random sample, i think the experiment was to determine if students receiving abstinence only education had less sex. They do not.


Alright then, well that proves the point. If they're not having less sex with abstinence only sex ed, why not teach them how to have safer sex?

And obviously teenagers make their own decisions, that's how family conflicts happen and the stereotype of rebellious teenagers was established, but I'd be more comfortable making it as easy as possible for teens to make smart decisions, rather than just saying "They're smart kids, they'll figure it out on their own."

I mean, I knew about safe sex before I even reached high school, but not every teen does. And if they're taught the only safe way is none at all, or that premarital sex is wrong and shameful, they're less likely to seek out ways to protect themselves. There's the thinking of: If it's wrong to do in any form, it's not going to be any less wrong if you wear a condom.
Image
Half Massed
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 4084
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Busting ghosts

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact