Mod The Sims - Teens, Sex, and Drugs

paksetti

19th Sep 2010, 06:07 AM

One thing I never understood is the method that campaigns like "Above the Influence (http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/)" to raise drug awareness. They either choose to only teach teens selected exaggerated "facts", or keep them ignorant, by using stupid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUxjI8BhJDk&feature=related) metaphors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwu7L38glcQ), or peer peressure (http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/the-ads/).

What does this commercial (http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/the-ads/) have to do with drugs? It features a teenage couple hanging out throughout the day with a vintage indie feel. This is hardly an adequate amount of information for someone to make an informed decision about drugs.
--
Teenagers are also kept ignorant when it comes to sex. In health class, they use scare tactics like shocking images of sexually transmitted disease, and show tragedy porn about teenage girls that were impregnated by a random guy who won't help raise the child. They even have the students carry around a fake baby for two weeks or more, throughout the day that cries "pees" needs to be "fed", and needs attention. The only thing they mention about condoms or birth control is the few times they fail. (Of course, they inflate that number).

In my opinion, the ends do not justify the means- if you kept thirty kids stupid and abstinent, do you consider that a victory?

edit: Pertaining to the U.S. particularly, or any other country where Sex and Drug education is similar.

simbalena

19th Sep 2010, 07:16 AM

Education can be so different depending on your country and school. It also depends on whether you are talking about school education programs or public eduction campaigns.

I found sex ed at school in Australia very good, but drug education needs improvement (especially the public education campaigns - "would you fly with this pilot if he'd being doing speed?" - hell yes, they regularly gave it to pilots in the military... and we'll get there way faster!).

In my opinion, the ends do not justify the means- if you kept thirty kids stupid and abstinent, do you consider that a victory?

The problem is that using scare tactics and misinformation doesn't achieve the ends that they are aiming for.

Dragonball161

19th Sep 2010, 07:43 AM

I'm assuming you are talking about America, that said, I will agree with you that neither program does enough.

I'm 5-years out of high school, and have lived in one place for most of my schooling. I remember we had "D.A.R.E" programs in elementary school, and every year we had drug awareness week, where we would learn about the harmful effects of drugs. It seemed like the schools actually wanted to prevent it. Although by the end of middle school, some of my naivety began to wear off as labels were given out such as "pot head" and "coke head," and some students would brag about snorting, even snorting sugar at lunch. As for sex-ed, I live in Lower Alabama, so that means churches every block and republicans securing the vote, so that was non-existent. In 5th grade, girls were taken into one room, and boys in another room, we were told about how our body changes and given a time to ask questions. Health class was mandatory in 7th grade, where we learned about STDs and that babies don't come from the stork, we were given robo-babies and graded on how we treated them. That was about two weeks of class time. Nothing else was said about the issue, it was assumed that no one was doing anything, although I do know of a few girls who were "knocked up" by graduation.

I believe that part of the issue might be that the schools still believe that the parent teaches their kid things. However, this is generally not the case. Another issue (at least around here) is that parents get fussy about the smallest thing. I had a high school teacher send home permission slips or memos to parents before she could/would teach about pre-Columbian America due to the fact that she would be giving an overview of their religious practices.

Nekowolf

19th Sep 2010, 12:20 PM

I hate those Above the Influence commercials so much, I want to punch myself in the head. They're fucking ridiculous. My friends smokes pot, I've been around him when he's smoking, and I've seen a few of those commercials and thought: "Dudes. Have you ever even been around someone who's high before? Seriously, have you?"

They remind me of commercials from Truth.com. I think I only have to mention just one to make my case.

Big tobacco considered banning sleep. That is seriously what Truth.com was making into a point in one ad.

Above the Influence and other similar crap are just like that.

dancehallsim

19th Sep 2010, 12:30 PM

I'm a big believer in legitimate, mandatory sex-ed in America. We need it, we have the ability to teach the facts, we should do it. I never had a sex-ed class in high school. The closest thing I had was an Anatomy & Physiology class senior year where we convinced the teacher to answer our questions. We started out on our typical A&P curriculum, but then we took over and changed the curriculum. By seniors we knew how sex worked, but we got to ask about STDs and good forms of birth control. I'm sure at that point over half of my class had had sex already, and this all should have been addressed years ago.

We shouldn't have to our SexEd through the grapevine, hearing about it from our friends who found out from this guy who found out from that guy who looked it up online. Schools need to have a way better system in place that teaches beyond abstinence. Give it as an option, obviously - only way to prevent STDs & pregnancy, duh.. but not everyone will listen, and if they don't listen, then they need the cold hard facts. My cousin has had three surprise pregnancies, starting when she was 20. She and my cousin are happily married now, but she has a 3 year old, a 2 year old and one on the way. All while on birth control. My aunt's first two children were born while she was on birth control.. It's kind of clear that birth control is not 100% effective and that needs to be taught.

No real opinion on Truth/Above the Influence. I took D.A.R.E. in elementary/middle school. I was a D.A.R.E. Role Model my senior year (though, by then, the D.A.R.E. program had been scrapped to put a police officer into the schools full time and we were like his helpers). I don't do drugs, I never have or will. It's just a personal interest thing for me. I have no interest. I'm not big into the "alter my state of mind" thing. As a runner I'm not interested in putting smoke into my lungs. So yeah, I don't think D.A.R.E. had the biggest effect on most people in my town since drugs are a huge part of people's routine there, so yeah.

Ive

19th Sep 2010, 12:49 PM

We had quite straightforward education in sex. Our teacher just sat us down in a circle and explained everything about sex and related things. No "shame" while talking, as if it was the most normal thing in the world and no trying to make it seem more horrible or nice than it is. Just explained that it's normal and basically said that if you want to do it, you should, but don't be sad or worried if it didn't turn out how you thought it would. Just make sure that you do it because you want to. Maybe half of the people had already had sex then but only with boyfriends/girlfriends they had been with for at least 6 months. (at age 13). We also saw a lot of films about pregnancy and even a video of birth (straight on!), tried condoms by stretching them to see how they break, put them on, look at different birth control, looked at what abortion does..

I just think that if you remove the "filth" about having sex so it stops being so secret, then you will remove some problems. Sex wouldn't be a form of protesting or standing out at a young age. Like a friend of mine from another place went to a 30 year old for "experience" so that when she would sleep with her boyfriend, she would know what she was doing. Disgusting. If having sex was something you wanted to do, not something you do because you are a couple and you know all that so sex is one of them, I think things would be better.

The area I grew up in was good. Not much drugs or sleeping around at all.

It was the same with drugs. We didn't have much education in that but teachers told us, no lie, that yes drugs do make you feel good but it does this and that. Very straightforward. If they said it was bad who would believe that? Of course drugs feel good, or else people wouldn't be doing them! But again it was so open in our community that the secret about it was gone and doing drugs was neither shocking or different. It lost it's effect so people didn't bother to try and upset or be a teen rebel.

People did smoke regardless of the shock pictures that were put on the packages but I would say everyone but one (me, eh) quit after a year as the point was?.... none.

In my community, the popular people were those who did good in school, good at sports, took care of others, got along with everyone. I feel pretty lucky :)

el_flel

19th Sep 2010, 02:16 PM

The sex-ed at my school was pretty basic. I remember having a couple of sessions about puberty (one at primary school when I was about 10/11 years old, one at secondary school when I was about 13), and one about sex (at secondary school), and they were all very clinical. I don't remember any lessons that dealt with the importance of relationships. I am very clued up about sex-ed, especially compared to some of my friends, but that's only because I learnt pretty much everything I know through reading teen magazines. I find it pretty appalling that I learnt more from Sugar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Magazine) than I did from my school.

Personally I think schools need to start teaching this stuff to kids from an early age. When there are 12 year olds having sex and falling pregnant I think that's a pretty clear sign that it needs to be dealt with before kids hit puberty. And it shouldn't be solely focusing on the biology; kids need to be taught about the importance of relationships - trust and love - because, sadly, many kids don't get this kind of education at home. I also think this is something that should always be dealt with by schools - you can't just rely on parents to teach their kids sex-ed because many don't talk about this stuff with their kids.

Being from the UK we don't have the problems that the US does with teaching abstinence only etc (thank goodness). Religion plays a very minor role here. It's more of a personal thing for people and as such is something quite seperate from politics.

As for education on drugs, I remember having maybe a couple of lessons on it. Back in the 1990s when the whole clubbing/raving scene was quite new and popular, it wasn't uncommon for people to take ecstasy. A girl called Leah Betts (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Leah_Betts) hit news headlines after taking E on her 18th birthday and dying. She actually died because she drank too much water after hearing lots of scare-stories about how people on E should make sure they drink plenty in order to avoid dehydration. The story of her death was taught to us as a "drugs are bad" message, and whilst some girls in my class found it really upsetting it didn't seem to actually stop anyone taking drugs.

Tbh I'm not really sure what can be done about drugs. People know the risks but do them anyway because it's a cheap, quick high. I don't really think any amount of education or scare-tactics are going to change that. In a way I kind of think it would be better to legalise them, because then the government can regulate it and that would in many ways make it safer for the people who take them. It would also reduce crime rates. I'm sort of torn with this issue though, because drugs are illegal because they (mostly) are dangerous, however, alcohol and tobacco are legal, and they aren't exactly 'safe', so why not legalise some of the softer drugs, like marijuana?

paksetti

19th Sep 2010, 04:49 PM

Yes, I'm in the United States. Abstinence only programs are terrible. The kids are taught to just not do it- no matter what, then they don't tell them about condoms or birth control or that they don't have to have sex when in a relationship, because they already told them to just not do it. More often than not, they also tell these teens not to masturbate.

They wonder why a horny teenager who can't masturbate or use a condom ends up having unsafe sex. Teens who were taught abstinence only are less likely to use a condom. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

And I had to learn on my own that cigarettes don't kill babies and aren't made of broken glass, and that pot isn't addictive, doesn't turn you into a criminal, and doesn't make you want to start smoking crack. I still smoke pot from time to time, (using a vaporizer as soon as I could afford one) I'm not a burnout, or and addict, I don't steal from my parents, and I don't hallucinate my dog telling me he's disappointed in me.

I couldn't trust my mom to teach me about drugs either, because she's convinced pot is highly addictive, and is a one-hit killer drug. Children should be taught in school.

SuicidiaParasidia

20th Sep 2010, 06:32 AM

*cringes when high school sex ed is mentioned*

not because the education was bad....it was honest as far as i could tell, though a bit....brief.

what sticks with me the most is how stupid the questions the teacher got were. >_<
"can you get pregnant from anal intercourse?" ffffffffffff......

maybe they should teach anatomy while theyre at it.

personally though i abstained from sex, drugs, and alcohol of my own volition. and sure, i got flack for not being "cool" like the kids who were into sex, drugs, and alcohol, but i had my own problems to worry about and quite frankly dont/didnt give a flying ffffff about whether or not they thought i was "cool".

ElementMK

20th Sep 2010, 07:09 AM

it was honest as far as i could tell, though a bit....brief.That's what she said?

It is odd to me that sex education and drug education are almost always thrown into the same debate. They're hardly similar issues, and it's not like one can practice taking "safe heroin". Educating about sex as a preventive measure (i.e. encouraging abstinence) is simply bound for failure.

unalisaa

20th Sep 2010, 07:42 AM

That's what she said?
Educating about sex as a preventive measure (i.e. encouraging abstinence) is simply bound for failure.

Not only that, but it also forces some moral views upon the students, something which I think is damaging.
To have a system free of political bias (for it appears to me that the topic of this debate has turned very much into a political fight), it should be possible to teach about these things in neutral, passive terms. "Some people do this, and to prevent this they do that. Others don't do it at all. That is a personal choice."

Btw: the original post is kind of unclear. OP, did you mean your statements as US-specific or do you genuinely believe this to be the case worldwide?

If you kept thirty kids stupid and abstinent, do you consider that a victory?
No. I didn't see why sex is inherently bad. Who cares if people are abstinent or not, as long as whatever they're doing is safe and consensual?
Additionally, I consider withholding information in that way ethically wrong.
Disclaimer: I have never attended a USian class dealing with sex-ed. But it is my impression that kids are told "Sex: don't do it. That is all.", possibly making them think there really isn't more to know. That's deceptive, at best.

Purity4

20th Sep 2010, 08:31 AM

Disclaimer: I have never attended a USian class dealing with sex-ed. But it is my impression that kids are told "Sex: don't do it. That is all.", possibly making them think there really isn't more to know. That's deceptive, at best.

I did attend a USAian sex/health ed class. It was much more in depth than your description. Subjects covered included anatomy, reproduction, contraception, STD's, hygiene and self-esteem. The class was not awkward for me at all.

jooxis

20th Sep 2010, 09:03 AM

The sex-ed I have had was one of the worst. I think at age 15 I still didn't know what "sex" was and that there is something called ejaculation, erection, ovulation, etc... I really just thought people rubbed their bodies together and the female became pregnant. There was no way I could find out because my parents were probably too uncomfortable about mentioning it, my school programs never offered much and I never watched pornography (had no access to it anyway).

ElementMK

20th Sep 2010, 09:39 AM

I did attend a USAian sex/health ed class. It was much more in depth than your description. Subjects covered included anatomy, reproduction, contraception, STD's, hygiene and self-esteem. The class was not awkward for me at all.The United States is a big place. I have been in similar classes, but the message from my district was clear: Abstinence first, fear second, and safe sex third.

paksetti

20th Sep 2010, 04:57 PM

Yes, it really depends where you're talking about in the U.S.. National campaigns teach abstinence, in the South and Midwest they mostly teach abstinence, but every once and a while you'll get a teacher who breaks the rules and teaches you what you need to know.

I'm reminded of that scene in Teeth where the students are all in health class, and there's a giant sticker over the page on female anatomy.

Essentially, I think it's that no one wants to teach them because they don't want anyone offended by ookie yucky sex. But the "because I said so" reasoning tends not to work after age 5.

Purity4

20th Sep 2010, 04:59 PM

The United States is a big place. I have been in similar classes, but the message from my district was clear: Abstinence first, fear second, and safe sex third.

Ya ya, I know. I was responding to the previous commenter who was implying all USA schools are one way, and was showing that not all schools are the same in the great big US of A. I am also aware that my school, located in the progressive pacific northwest, regardless of being majority white/christian population, still offered education rather than pushing a moral agenda.

el_flel

20th Sep 2010, 05:02 PM

Are these abstinence only "teaching" methods a fairly new thing?

Nekowolf

20th Sep 2010, 05:07 PM

starved4pizza

20th Sep 2010, 06:21 PM

The abstinence only thing being taught in school HAS to be new. I was in 6th grade in 2002, and even back then, they taught us all about the sex organs, why you should wear a condom, different diseases, periods, ect. I asked my friend, who is a senior in high school now, and is three years younger than me what she was taught. Now, they don't even have a health class. And yes, we were in the same school district for some time.

I think teens should be allowed to experiment with sex, as long as they're being safe, and wearing a condom. If they're truly being careful with it, there's nothing wrong with trying it. People have urges, and teenhood is aroud the time where it jumps into overdrive. Again, just use a condom. Birth control for the young ladies probably wouldn't hurt, either.

As for teens and drugs? No. No way.

fragglerocks

20th Sep 2010, 06:37 PM

When my daughter is a teenager (God help me) I can say for certainty now that I'd rather her tell me she's been smoking marijuana, than having unsafe sex. I'd much rather her do neither of those things, but if she's anything like me, she's going to do what she wants regardless.

Honestly, I feel alcohol was the biggest problem with my teenage-years friends. They would drink, and lose inhibitions, and then all the bad stuff would follow.

RoseCity

20th Sep 2010, 06:40 PM

I can't remember the name, but a long time ago, like, Revolutionary times, there was a religious group in the US. They believed ALL sex was bad, even for procreation. So they were all chaste, even when married.
Yeah, they didn't last long.

Are you thinking of the Shakers? I think there's still a small community left. They got members from outside recruitment instead of inside procreation.

There's a lot of hypocrisy about sexuality and drugs directed at teens from adults - 'Sex is fun and I'll put images of it everywhere to sell things, but don't do it until you're a certain age or until married.' 'Drugs are bad but I can't get through the day without my Xanax or alcohol.'
Parents are the best role models - they can model everyday the behavior they hope their kids will emulate.

fakepeeps7

20th Sep 2010, 06:47 PM

I can't remember the name, but a long time ago, like, Revolutionary times, there was a religious group in the US. They believed ALL sex was bad, even for procreation. So they were all chaste, even when married.

Yeah, they didn't last long.

I think you're talking about the Shakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers). They didn't like marriage and baby-making... so the only way to keep up their numbers was with adoption or adult converts.

But on the other end of the spectrum, you've got the Quiverfulls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull), whose goal is to have as many babies as possible.

Abstinence-only education probably helps both groups. The Shakers benefit because they value celibacy. The Quiverfulls benefit because abstinence-only education leads to ignorant kids who go and have sex anyway and who don't know how to protect themselves from pregnancy.

Oaktree

20th Sep 2010, 09:04 PM

I got my first sex ed from my parents. They had a bit of an abstinence slant to what they told me, but they still told me how things worked, without holding back. I got a very rudimentary sex ed lesson in 5th grade, but it didn't teach me much that I didn't already know. I got much better sex ed classes in 8th and 9th grade. Those had pictures and videos to explain anatomy and STDs, as well as talking about contraception. It was taught in a pretty neutral manner. I think there might have been one video that had a bit of a slant toward abstinence, but then there were other videos and lectures that were focused on information and protection. I think the school was just trying to cover the bases. I don't think that my sex education was inadequate, though it can be a little difficult to separate the things that I learned from my parents vs. from the school.

I always thought the drug awareness programs relied too heavily on preaching to the choir. I already knew that I wasn't going to try drugs, but I had to sit through assemblies about it every year. I think it would have been better to simply do the basic drug lecture as part of the assembly on student conduct so we wouldn't have to sit through an hour long assembly purely dedicated to drugs and their effects every year.

Rectos Dominos

21st Sep 2010, 02:53 AM

I was taught sex-ed in Grade 7 and a little from my parents before that. I live in Canada and far as I know abstinence-only aren't as prevalant as our neighbour's and I joke about how sexually repressed the next generation will be in the US. Our programs are usually comprehensive do encourage abstinence but do address STD's, birth control, and other health risks. I do feel it is the parents responsibilty to teach them something about sex but realistically we can't count on that for kids who come from very conservative or very religious parents.(My Mom grew up in the bible belt and my grandma was the only one who talked to her kids about sex). My town unfortuntly has a high teen pregnancy rate but I think it a combination of lack of activities and parents not giving a shit what their kids do and sex-education or lack of is not the only thing contributor to teen pregnancy. (Believe it or not I don't live in a highly religious town)

I am a non-smoker and always found the anti-smoking ads to be dumb. Several years ago we had comercials where someone would do something asinine like having a toaster next the bath or holding a lightining rod during a thunder storm saying you have a 1 in 800 chance or dying from toast in the bath but with smoking my chances of dying are like 1 in 2 what's more stupid.

The stupidest anti-drug comercial I was seen was these 2 teen boys most just smoking pot and one see's a gun and shots himself in the head while high than the it says Marijuana Harmless? Yeah cause that totally happens all the time when people smoke pot.

Undercovers_Agent

21st Sep 2010, 03:29 AM

So would I be hated If I was "That guy" who did drugs, had sex, got in fights, and drank durring his teen years?

pinketamine

21st Sep 2010, 03:32 AM

Haha, then I'll be hated too.

The sex-ed I have had was one of the worst. I think at age 15 I still didn't know what "sex" was and that there is something called ejaculation, erection, ovulation, etc... I really just thought people rubbed their bodies together and the female became pregnant. There was no way I could find out because my parents were probably too uncomfortable about mentioning it, my school programs never offered much and I never watched pornography (had no access to it anyway).
This surprises me a lot because when I was 15 I had already had sex. And I don't know, at that age everyone knows how sex works, or that is what I had always assumed.

And honestly, how can someone ask if anal sex will make you pregnant? That is something I don't understand.

My sex-ed at school was pretty limited but covered the part of anticonceptives and those things, and they did not tell us that "don't have sex or you'll die" thing. I was going to a Catholic school, but most teachers were open minded and talked directly about the important things.

Oh, and about drugs, we mainly got information. They didn't use scare tactics, just objective information of the effects drugs have in your body. If you want to take drugs you'll do it, so I think information is better that the "this shit kills you".

Nekowolf

21st Sep 2010, 04:09 AM

Fucking seriously? They're still around? Just wow! I don't know how to even respond to that.

simbalena

22nd Sep 2010, 05:59 AM

So would I be hated If I was "That guy" who did drugs, had sex, got in fights, and drank durring his teen years?

Yes... by the people you had bad sex with, the people you fought with and the people you didn't share your drugs with!

whiterider

22nd Sep 2010, 11:33 AM

If all the people you have sex with end up hating you, ur doin it rong.

Undercovers_Agent

22nd Sep 2010, 07:45 PM

Yes... by the people you had bad sex with, the people you fought with and the people you didn't share your drugs with!

Haha that made my depressing day, sadly two people died today, one was 11-44 unknown the other was a kid who just got his license that I'd known for a while, drunk driver, which does really relate to the topic, drinking is fine, but only when moderated.

el_flel

30th Sep 2010, 01:27 PM

Just saw this and thought it was pretty funny, and relevant to this debate:

http://notalwaysright.com/will-power-on-aisle-2/7306

cancerously

2nd Oct 2010, 06:51 AM

wow lol.

anyway, no one ever really talked to me about sex except my doctor when I was like eleven or twelve, and my friends and I figured out everything out on our own after that, either by books, porn, other stuff from the internet... whatever. I think a lot of the problem was that growing up, my parents made sex out to be this big mystery. no one ever talked about it or anything. it was almost taboo to mention it or anything. and I'm a naturally curious person, so of course after a certain age this dug at me but I was always to terrified because I honestly thought it was this huge deal or something. now, I think the problem is that people don't think it is a big enough deal.

and those drug commercials are retarded. they're cheesy and they tell you NOTHING about drugs. like some of them I don't even get... like that one about the people in the diner and the one guy is like "nah I gotta go hit the books" and the guy working at the diner looks at his friends like they're crazy and doesn't let them order food or something?? what the hell? that doesn't even indicate that they're on drugs or anything. bleh.

potatoehead

2nd Oct 2010, 07:09 AM

I had comprehensive sex ed in freshman year of high school taught by my biology teacher. The class consisted of a detailed discussion of sexual anatomy, the effectiveness of different contraceptives, and pregnancy, among other things that I can't remember because it's 2 in the morning. My teacher kept saying "Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of conctraception," and said that sex should be reserved for marriage or a committed relationship, but in a way that wasn't moralizing. It's true that you should take sex seriously, especially at my age (15). They've done studies, and teenagers who are sexually active outside of a committed relationship do worse in school. As for drugs, I received mostly straight information, though I can't remember exactly how much I got.

And pinketamine- it's interesting you bring up going to a Catholic school, because my mother went to one during the seventies, and she received comprehensive sex ed. Must have been a pretty enlightened school.

paksetti

2nd Oct 2010, 05:47 PM

like that one about the people in the diner and the one guy is like "nah I gotta go hit the books" and the guy working at the diner looks at his friends like they're crazy and doesn't let them order food or something?? what the hell? that doesn't even indicate that they're on drugs or anything. bleh.

Well, that's not quite right.
That commercial features a bunch of 'trendy urban youths' sitting in a diner, Urban Youth A mentions that he is "gonna go get twisted" (twisted, tha fuck?) and asks if Urban Youth B wants do join. He declines, stating that he's "gotta hit the books, man". Urban Youth B asks the owner of the diner if he can pay, and to our shock, the owner says "nah". For a moment, Urban Youth B is shocked, but is then relieved one-and-a-half seconds later to hear the owner say "we straight".

What's the message here, kids? Don't do drugs and people will give you stuff for free.

Lying wasn't working, let's try bribery.

cancerously

3rd Oct 2010, 04:29 PM

Well, that's not quite right.
That commercial features a bunch of 'trendy urban youths' sitting in a diner, Urban Youth A mentions that he is "gonna go get twisted" (twisted, tha fuck?) and asks if Urban Youth B wants do join. He declines, stating that he's "gotta hit the books, man". Urban Youth B asks the owner of the diner if he can pay, and to our shock, the owner says "nah". For a moment, Urban Youth B is shocked, but is then relieved one-and-a-half seconds later to hear the owner say "we straight".

What's the message here, kids? Don't do drugs and people will give you stuff for free.

Lying wasn't working, let's try bribery.

OH! it makes more sense now. although, if the audience can't hear the person ask if they "want to get twisted" the commercial still isn't effective.

WaterWolf

3rd Oct 2010, 09:06 PM

How do condoms fail? I really dont see it.

Unless your so desperate for the DD's that you split it while 'equipping' it.

el_flel

3rd Oct 2010, 09:15 PM

Unless I've misunderstood you, they can split, come off, go missing, certain oils can disintegrate the rubber.

WaterWolf

3rd Oct 2010, 09:25 PM

Unless I've misunderstood you, they can split, come off, go missing, certain oils can disintegrate the rubber.

I like you said "go missing"

It sorta makes me a bit uptight about sex now. Is "the pill" 100% safe too? Obviously im not implying i take it (lol) or that ill force my girlfriend to take one, its just i dont want to end up being a 16 year old mentally insane dad.

el_flel

3rd Oct 2010, 09:57 PM

Nothing is 100% safe when it comes to contraception, but provided they are used as they should be they will be about 97-99% effective.

fakepeeps7

4th Oct 2010, 12:55 AM

Nothing is 100% safe when it comes to contraception, but provided they are used as they should be they will be about 97-99% effective.

Abstinence is 100% safe.

It's not much fun, either.

paksetti

4th Oct 2010, 04:13 AM

Using both the pill and a condom/diaphragm- you should be fine.

ElementMK

4th Oct 2010, 05:29 AM

Using both the pill and a condom/diaphragm- you should be fine.Diaphragms aren't usually viable options for teens. Long-term diaphragms are expensive, and both long-term and immediate use diaphragms come in a myriad of shapes and sizes for the, er, discerning vagina that must be fit by a physician.

It's best to go with a three-punch combination of the pill, a condom (male has a lower failure rate), and withdrawl. Withdrawl is actually intended with the use of condoms (so long as you grab on), and it helps stop issues like a broken condom that may go unnoticed. Only the condom will protect you against STDs, so don't trust the pill alone. Also, for the love of God, DON'T DOUBLE BAG IT. That increases the chances of condom failure.

If you do these three things, and you do them right, you'll only have to worry about immaculate conception.

el_flel

4th Oct 2010, 12:28 PM

Abstinence is 100% safe.

It's not much fun, either.I personally wouldn't count abstinence as a contraception. Yeah, it prevents pregnancy and STD's but only because you're not actually partaking in the activity which leads to those things! The whole point of contraception is that you get the best of both worlds :heyhey:

treegirl17

4th Oct 2010, 03:04 PM

OH! it makes more sense now. although, if the audience can't hear the person ask if they "want to get twisted" the commercial still isn't effective.

The commercial is just showing the right thing. It took me a few times to get it but in the end the owner was showing the boy did the right thing. And seriously Urban Youth? You sound like my grandma.

HystericalParoxysm

4th Oct 2010, 03:09 PM

I personally wouldn't count abstinence as a contraception. Yeah, it prevents pregnancy and STD's but only because you're not actually partaking in the activity which leads to those things!

That's true... if abstinence is "100% effective contraception" then so is suicide. Or castration.

treegirl17

4th Oct 2010, 05:56 PM

I didn't go to high school but from attending sixth grade we did color the urethra of a man's penis green. It was dumb. I know I am going to tell my kids when they are 8. My sister is 10 and she knows about sex from other kids and she got her period two months before her birthday. I personally feel its dumb. Our world use to birth kids before their 16th birthday. When did we become so prudish? We should be able to embrace our sexuality.

I haven't seen D.A.R.E since 2001-2002. I personally believe you shouldn't smoke pot or any other drug. I even don't agree with drinking; I have but nothing more than a paper cup like 8oz and I didn't even drink it all. I also think having sex at a young age is okay as long as you do it carefully and your parents know.

When it comes to it though it is the parents choice to educate the children. I hate to hear I raised my kids better than that and you didn't do two shits with them.

el_flel

4th Oct 2010, 06:20 PM

That's true... if abstinence is "100% effective contraception" then so is suicide. Or castration.Exactly. It's faulty logic to me.

Many fun things carry risk; simply saying "don't do it", whilst being true that it eliminates the risk, is pointless advice because obviously the person wants to do it therefore they wish to know the risks and how to reduce the chances of them.

Purity4

4th Oct 2010, 06:30 PM

Using both the pill and a condom/diaphragm- you should be fine.
:lol: I was on the pill, exclusively breastfeeding my 5 month old daughter (supposedly breastfeeding hormones reduce fertility) and had sex only once, using a condom, when my second child was conceived.

el_flel

4th Oct 2010, 06:33 PM

My friend used a condom and then when it split she took the morning after pill. BOTH failed to stop her getting pregnant. Some people are just unlucky.

paksetti

4th Oct 2010, 10:39 PM

And seriously Urban Youth? You sound like my grandma.

Obviously you didn't get that I was saying the commercial portrayed stereotypes.

I got it the first time, it's bribery. I realize that the owner is saying "You did the right thing by refusing drugs, now here's your reward" But instead of informing teens of the risks associated with drugs, and giving them enough respect to make an informed decision (which is, ultimately all you can do, because you can't hold Johnny's hand forever) they use a not so clever metaphor to say that "Hey, drugs are a bad thing, and if you say no to them, you get a good thing! Way to go, slugger!"

fakepeeps7

4th Oct 2010, 11:06 PM

That's true... if abstinence is "100% effective contraception" then so is suicide. Or castration.

They're not? I would've thought castration was pretty darn effective...

Hey, I'm not advocating for abstinence-only education. I was just pointing out that if you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant.

Worked for the Shakers. (Or maybe it didn't. I guess they didn't consider the possibility that without sex, their sect would die out!)

SuicidiaParasidia

7th Oct 2010, 07:38 AM

the abstinence pledge: because as grossed out as kids are when they consider their parents having sex, parents are just as grossed out by the notion of their children having sex.

treegirl17

8th Oct 2010, 02:15 PM

Obviously you didn't get that I was saying the commercial portrayed stereotypes.

I got it the first time, it's bribery. I realize that the owner is saying "You did the right thing by refusing drugs, now here's your reward" But instead of informing teens of the risks associated with drugs, and giving them enough respect to make an informed decision (which is, ultimately all you can do, because you can't hold Johnny's hand forever) they use a not so clever metaphor to say that "Hey, drugs are a bad thing, and if you say no to them, you get a good thing! Way to go, slugger!"

I know! Its dumb. I never did drugs before and I wish I could go into a store and say that and get an ice cream cone.

jay_envy

10th Oct 2010, 09:03 PM

ElementMK

10th Oct 2010, 11:05 PM

I feel like I may be alone in here, but growing up I dabbled in everything. I experimented with drugs, I had my first drink at 15 and have been going strong with sex since my freshman year of highschool. I switched schools 3 times, so I got the D.A.R.E program more than once and let me tell you, it wasn't effective at all. Sure, they tell you drinking and drugs is bad, but with no proper or logical facts. "If you smoke weed, you could end up with epilepsy or brain damage, and all your friends will hate you!" and "If you drink, you'll end up driving a car and killing all of your friends and a family of 4!" Its complete and utter nonsense. Teenagers experiment... its what they do.That's a bit generalizing. Scientists experiment, 'cause that's what they do.

I never smoked weed, cigarettes, or downed a drop of alcohol in high school. It's not that I was afraid of drugs, it was that I didn't care. We didn't have strong anti-drug campaigns in school, and it's funny how something loses its attractive qualities if it's mostly ignored. Fear-based classes don't work when information can be scary on its own. Of course, we wouldn't have a reasonable argument against marijuana, but that's hardly a bad thing. Similarly, if I'm going to have some alcohol, I'm going to wait until I'm 21. Not because I believe the age restriction is proper, but because if I want a beer, I'm going to buy it for myself.

Now, sex was another matter. Despite my liberal attitude about teens and other people being sexually active, I regret the few experiences I had when I was young. It isn't intimate if it feels necessary. Back then, that's what it was: something we did because it was cool and grown-up. That's not what it's about, and that's why we need to de-stigmatize it. It's not bad, it's not good, it's just a part of life. Today, I can have sex for the sake of wanting to have sex with someone. Does that make sense?

These programs should instead give better advice, not on how they shouldn't do it, but if they're going to do it, what should they avoid etc. I disagree. In the case of drugs and booze, we should always fight hard drugs. We've had a local meth problem for a long time, and it needs to remain banned. Pot, tobacco, and alcohol shouldn't be fought with one-sided information, though. What are we saying now? "It's very bad until you turn 21, then it becomes very good"? That's stupid.

simbalena

11th Oct 2010, 03:03 AM

In the case of drugs and booze, we should always fight hard drugs. We've had a local meth problem for a long time, and it needs to remain banned. Pot, tobacco, and alcohol shouldn't be fought with one-sided information, though.

But fighting hard drugs also means not using one-sided information, and educating about harm minimization if there is a chance that someone is going to use drugs.

ElementMK

11th Oct 2010, 03:28 AM

But fighting hard drugs also means not using one-sided information, and educating about harm minimization if there is a chance that someone is going to use drugs.That's thing about hard drugs, though. They're unpredictable. Any "safe use" education we throw at it is pretty much moot, because every person will react to it in totally different and sometimes violent ways. One person could use heroin for years without catastrophic side effects, while another can have a heart attack on their first try. Nicotine, pot and alcohol are separate because though everyone's reaction is different, they sit closely together on the same spectrum (i.e. we all get drunk to a different degree.)

Isn't that why LSD is illegal? AFAIK, it isn't addictive and the physical effects are minimal, but every once in a while we'll have someone on a bad trip screaming their lungs out and trying to kill themselves. There's no way to predict or prevent a bad trip, either. It just happens.

That's not to say we shouldn't learn about possible lifesaving techniques if we encounter someone being affected by hard drugs, and I'm all for that. A shot of vodka saves you from antifreeze, another shot makes you forget you drank it.

simbalena

11th Oct 2010, 04:40 AM

But harm minimisation education teaches that there is no "safe use".

jay_envy

11th Oct 2010, 09:04 AM

But harm minimisation education teaches that there is no "safe use".

Exactly. Which results in a number of accidental overdosing with teenagers, who are unaware of how much their body can handle. Yes, some teens may be scared enough not to try anything, but there are always a whole group that aren't fazed by any of it.

Teenagers will experiment, and telling them lies to scare them, that all drugs are habit forming and will cause some sort of death, its ridiculous. Lighting up and smoking a blunt is about as deadly as picking your nose. So when you tell kids that smoking pot and drinking is deadly, and they go out and discover, "HEY! This isn't dangerous at all! In fact, its really f***ing fun!" they're more likely to experiment with harder drugs.

As for sex, its never really been an intimate thing for me. And I never did it to be "cool and grown-up." It has always just been fun. But I do get what you're saying, and I'm sure thats the case for a lot of teenagers. I just graduated back in 08', so the health classes weren't too bad. My teacher would always bring a basket of condoms to every class. Sure, we learned about STDs and teenage pregnancy, but Mr.Perry sure as hell knew it wouldn't stop any of us, so he simply just gave us the means to be safe when going about it.

SuicidiaParasidia

15th Oct 2010, 11:24 PM

Exactly. Which results in a number of accidental overdosing with teenagers, who are unaware of how much their body can handle. Yes, some teens may be scared enough not to try anything, but there are always a whole group that aren't fazed by any of it.

Teenagers will experiment, and telling them lies to scare them, that all drugs are habit forming and will cause some sort of death, its ridiculous. Lighting up and smoking a blunt is about as deadly as picking your nose. So when you tell kids that smoking pot and drinking is deadly, and they go out and discover, "HEY! This isn't dangerous at all! In fact, its really f***ing fun!" they're more likely to experiment with harder drugs.

As for sex, its never really been an intimate thing for me. And I never did it to be "cool and grown-up." It has always just been fun. But I do get what you're saying, and I'm sure thats the case for a lot of teenagers. I just graduated back in 08', so the health classes weren't too bad. My teacher would always bring a basket of condoms to every class. Sure, we learned about STDs and teenage pregnancy, but Mr.Perry sure as hell knew it wouldn't stop any of us, so he simply just gave us the means to be safe when going about it.

the bolded areas indicate where my brain exploded. seriously--WHAT?

first off; i would HOPE that anyone with half a brain in their skull would take "there is no safe use" to mean that taking it at all is a risk. there are no guarantees that youll die, yeah, but theres no guarantee that youll live through it either. thats what "no safe use" means. basically, its russian roulette when you screw around with dangerous substances. that would be a warning sign, not a "go ahead" signal.

also, "fun" and "dangerous" do not mean the same thing. something can be QUITE dangerous in nature, but fun to do. sky diving, for example. if done right, the danger is MINIMAL; read: not eradicated. there is always room for a situation to change.
but it is always dangerous and it may also be a lot of fun for whoever enjoys such endeavors. and no, i have nothing against sky divers. or bungee jumpers, or skiiers, or potheads; but when they end up flat on the pavement, or wrapped around a tree, or trying to reach a pool from a rooftop and missing, it DOES cost. dearly.

im no math whiz, but even i know that every time you repeat a dangerous action (with a chance of no negative repercussion), that chance of getting screwed up increases. it doesnt go away. it doesnt stop being dangerous, just because whee, we're a-havin' SO much FUN~!

reality is scary. complaining about scariness being in drug education is like complaining about scariness being present in anything except for horror movies. ever been by someones side as they died horribly of drug misuse? pretty damn scary, i would say.

on the other hand, i strongly believe that if someone wants to risk their life for a thrilling 15 minutes, they are wholly entitled to do so.

as long as they know what theyre doing and are aware that, yes, it COULD be your last 15 minutes.
im not advocating living in fear. but awareness? yes, i would say thats a good idea. thinking that just because last time nothing horrible happened, the next time will also be 100% safe? naive, at least.

but as far as opinion goes, i think drug use (aside from purely medicinal reasons) is foolish and uncreative. why take such a huge risk on something you could find somewhere else? maybe not in THAT form, but hell, access your imagination and you could have all the entertainment you could ever want. and hell, it doesnt take that much effort to do, even.

jay_envy

16th Oct 2010, 06:49 PM

also, "fun" and "dangerous" do not mean the same thing. something can be QUITE dangerous in nature, but fun to do. sky diving, for example. if done right, the danger is MINIMAL; read: not eradicated. there is always room for a situation to change.
but it is always dangerous and it may also be a lot of fun for whoever enjoys such endeavors. and no, i have nothing against sky divers. or bungee jumpers, or skiiers, or potheads; but when they end up flat on the pavement, or wrapped around a tree, or trying to reach a pool from a rooftop and missing, it DOES cost. dearly.

im no math whiz, but even i know that every time you repeat a dangerous action (with a chance of no negative repercussion), that chance of getting screwed up increases. it doesnt go away. it doesnt stop being dangerous, just because whee, we're a-havin' SO much FUN~!.

My whole point was that they should incorporate things like safe drug use in these classes, because when teenagers go out and do them and they have fun they believe that they'll be fine, and its 'too much fun' to not do again. I'm not advocating drug use ffs, I'm just saying you can't have a program that is telling you not to do drugs, without a side that tells you, "Hey, look, even though I told you not to do them and what will happen if you decide to do them, I'm sure some of you will probably go out there and do them anyway. So I'll give you some advice on some ways you can safely do them."

I know all about drug related death. A friend of mine OD'd when I was 16, because she was having 'so much fun.' My good friends brother was in a car with people who were drunk driving and the car ended up wrapped around a tree.

Like I said, I'm not advocating drinking or using drugs, I'm simply saying that a lot of teenagers WILL do them, regardless if a drug program is in place. I did, and a lot of my classmates and friends did. So these people who teach these classes should give them advice on what to do if they find themselves in a situation where they took too much, how much to take etc. without advocating for it.

paksetti

16th Oct 2010, 08:16 PM

i have nothing against sky divers. or bungee jumpers, or skiiers, or potheads; but when they end up flat on the pavement, or wrapped around a tree, or trying to reach a pool from a rooftop and missing, it DOES cost. dearly.

Pot doesn't make you suddenly want to do something stupid like jump off a rooftop, you make you want to jump off a rooftop.

In my opinion, there are only a few ways pot can have a negative effect on you.
You're ignorant and drink the bongwater, so you get a stomach ache.
You have asthma and you smoke it instead of eating it or using a gravity bong or vaporizer.
You smoke too much and feel shitty.
You smoke too much and do something you normally could do, know you shouldn't do, but do it anyway. Like driving after you smoked so much your muscles get weak. You never get so high on marijuana that you have no idea that driving when you can barely stand is a bad idea.

It does have an inherent risk, like chopping vegetables, but it becomes deionized because people like about it.

SuicidiaParasidia

16th Oct 2010, 10:10 PM

really, now? (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Top+coroner+warns+on+cannabis,+the+silent+killer-a0109596467)

JAMIE WATERS, 24, was driving to his grandmother's home for Christmas in December 2001 when his car was hit by a BMW BMW
in full Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

German automaker. Founded as an aircraft engine manufacturer in 1916, the company assumed the name Bayerische Motoren Werke and became known for its high-speed motorcycles in the 1920s. travelling on the wrong side of the road.

The BMW careered over his car, crushing it and killing Mr Waters instantly.

At the wheel of the BMW was 46-yearold Matthew Crooke, who was high on cannabis.

Crooke, a former art lecturer from Stroud, Gloucestershire, who also died outright, had cannabis in his pocket. An inquest in May last year revealed the drug was in his blood.

aaaand negative health reprocussions as well? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm)

bottom line: there is no "all good" or "all bad" drug out there. thinking in black and white terms will turn you blue and red (all over).

swollen tongue, difficulty breathing sound pretty life-threatening to me. (http://www.wgrz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=82105)

el_flel

16th Oct 2010, 10:37 PM

I agree with SP: cannabis isn't safe. Sure, it's not as bad as cocaine or heroin, but it still isn't harmless. I've had friends with people who smoke(d) weed recreationally. On more than one occasion they've "spun out" from smoking too much, making them hallucinate. I also have an ex with major problems with paranoia due to smoking too much weed, and a friend whose brother has drug-induced psychosis. It's also proven (in addition to being obvious to anyone who's smoked it or been around someone smoking it) that cannabis reduces your reaction times, decision making abilities, and perceptions of time and distance. There are also plenty of people who get caught driving whilst high on it. So I reject the notion that the worst that can happen is: ...driving after you smoked so much your muscles get weak. You never get so high on marijuana that you have no idea that driving when you can barely stand is a bad idea.

Whilst I definitely advocate educating people about safety there isn't really a safe way to take drugs, because they're illegal.

jay_envy

17th Oct 2010, 01:35 AM

Whilst I definitely advocate educating people about safety there isn't really a safe way to take drugs, because they're illegal.

Yet alcohol is the most dangerous drug of them all, and its legal. :up:
The safety is in the moderation.

potatoehead

17th Oct 2010, 01:38 AM

Erm, no, I'm pretty sure heroin and other drugs can do a heckuva lot more than alcohol.

jay_envy

17th Oct 2010, 01:41 AM

Alcohol ranks up there with heroin and meth. But for anybody who regards alcohol as anything other than a drug, that is just stupidity.

fakepeeps7

17th Oct 2010, 01:48 AM

Let's keep pot illegal. But then let's also ban alcohol. It's dangerous, too. You can get alcohol poisoning, or get really drunk and get some girl pregnant, or drive your car and wrap it around a tree! (Note: I'm being sarcastic. I actually think the stuff should be legalized... and then taxed.)

What we're really arguing against here is stupidity... not drugs. And you can't ban stupid people (no matter how much we'd like to).

jay_envy

17th Oct 2010, 02:07 AM

What we're really arguing against here is stupidity... not drugs. And you can't ban stupid people (no matter how much we'd like to).

Exactly. :beer:

el_flel

17th Oct 2010, 02:24 AM

Yet alcohol is the most dangerous drug of them all, and its legal. :up:
The safety is in the moderation.Firstly, alcohol isn't the most dangerous drug, that would be heroin (linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6474053.stm)). It's not even the second. When people talk about the dangers of alcohol they are usually ignoring the fact that simply by being legal you will get many more people who consume it. It's a logical inference to make that the more people that take a drug the more people will suffer ill-effects of it. It's not really objective to say, "there are more alcoholics than heroin addicts and that must mean alcohol is more dangerous/addictive" because it's ignoring important factors that lead to those differences.

And secondly, that's not my point. My point is: if something is illegal it will never be safe to do it because every time you do you are running the risk of being caught. The rule of moderation isn't always going to work. Heroin, for example, is highly addictive, it doesn't take long.

Lastly, I actually think if we're going to legalise alcohol and tobacco then I don't see why we don't legalise some other low-harm drugs. It's a bit silly to me. If certain drugs were legalised then they could be regulated meaning taking them would be safer, and you'd have a reduction in crime rates.

jay_envy

17th Oct 2010, 02:56 AM

I actually think if we're going to legalise alcohol and tobacco then I don't see why we don't legalise some other low-harm drugs. It's a bit silly to me. If certain drugs were legalised then they could be regulated meaning taking them would be safer, and you'd have a reduction in crime rates.

I completely agree with you on that.

But in terms of heroin use, I have never met someone who started out dabbling with drugs with heroin. When you get to the point of using heroin, you've most likely been screwing around with drugs for awhile and know very well what you're getting into. I mean I've experimented with plenty of drugs before, but never have I tried heroin, nor have I had the desire to. That stuff will mess you up.

SuicidiaParasidia

17th Oct 2010, 02:58 AM

okay, totally different swing in topic here, but ive heard/read it implied that abstinence is practically impossible.
sex is natural, yes.
NEEDING to have sex is natural, yes. (for most; for some, its also perfectly natural to not want/need sex. asexuals, for instance.)

but where is it dictated that you need to have sex with someone to reap the benefits of sexual pleasure?

do we not have vibrators? do we not have hands?

dont know about you, but ive never heard of someone getting pregnant from a pocket rocket or their fingers. granted those fingers were cleaned properly before usage...

but what annoys me is that people seem to think that abstinence, or abstaining from sex with fellow humans (oh god that sounds wrong, but bear with me) means you arent having any sort of sexual ...er... release at all.

why arent teens educated on ALTERNATIVES? why must it always be sex with another person or no sex at all?

potatoehead

17th Oct 2010, 03:16 AM

You know, I have absolutely no experience with this, but I would think it's a lot more fun when you do it with an actual person.

Shoosh Malooka

17th Oct 2010, 03:39 AM

why must it always be sex with another person or no sex at all?

Because teens most care about complying with the rules of teendom. Have sex before age X or else you are lame. This, of course, is just angsty competition.

ElementMK

17th Oct 2010, 04:09 AM

"When the lights go out, the only business is the business between two consenting people." "Or one!" "Or six!" "Oh, my."

jay_envy

17th Oct 2010, 04:34 AM

why arent teens educated on ALTERNATIVES? why must it always be sex with another person or no sex at all?

For real? As fun as masturbating is, it doesn't even begin to compare to sex and all of its glory. :heyhey:

Gritz

17th Oct 2010, 01:20 PM

Personally, I grew up with peer pressure that was against sex and drugs. Group that along with parents and teachers that will tell you all the things that could go wrong, and a brain, and I haven't done drugs, sex, nothing. I'm 22. I'm a chick. I don't see why people rave about it. Out of sight and out of mind.

I also know people that were killed by other people doing drugs and driving etc. That's not something I want to become. My mother is a GED instructor and she says that 80% of the people (at least 300 a year) that come through the doors are people under 20 who got knocked up.

I think if they want to fool around with drugs and sex, they should wait until they're over 20, have held a job, completed highschool, and have started their road to life. Otherwise, they may be thinking as a teen and not as a mature adult with responsibilities.

unalisaa

17th Oct 2010, 04:16 PM

@Gritz: It's nice that you have found a solution that works for you. There's one thing, though, and it probably wasn't intentional, but you kind of make it sound as if people who choose to drink, have sex, or do drugs are somehow stupid or give in to peer pressure easily.
I think everyone should be allowed to make informed choices, and if someone's choice is to have safe, legal sex, should they really be condemned for that? Or, in places where it is legal, for having a drink once in a while?
As for drugs, I realise those can't really be done legally a lot of places, but still, I don't think a person who made a well thought-through choice should be thought of as lesser.

Also, I don't think it's feasible to expect people to have held a job before they start having sex, especially not in a society where most are still in the middle of their education at 20. Or does an after school type job count? Because, to tell you the truth, I don't think the hours I've spent wiping drool off baby toys have in any way prepared me for any physical and/or emotional consequences of having sex.*

*any jokes made along the lines of "at least now you're discouraged from getting pregnant!" will be met with a stern glance over the edge of my glasses.

Voshi

17th Oct 2010, 04:17 PM

We learned about a few different kinds of contraception, and that absence is best and all.
In the drug unit we learned: how long it stays in your system; what it does; health risks; and if it's a physical/mental addiction. Something like that.

fakepeeps7

17th Oct 2010, 07:15 PM

For real? As fun as masturbating is, it doesn't even begin to compare to sex and all of its glory. :heyhey:

That may be true, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be teaching kids about how to... erm... "have fun" (without the risk of pregnancy and babies and truncated childhoods and all that). Plus, there are those who actually advocate masturbation for everyone, because you get to know your body and what pleases you... important stuff that you can share with a partner later on.

Not everybody has a partner to enjoy the "glory" with, anyway. And I don't like the idea of kids rushing out with the first willing person they meet just so they can experience it right this minute.

jay_envy

17th Oct 2010, 08:07 PM

And I don't like the idea of kids rushing out with the first willing person they meet just so they can experience it right this minute.

Essentially, thats what I do. I mean, relationships aren't my thing and haven't ever been an interest of mine. I'm 20 years old, I work full-time and go to school, so I wouldn't know how to make time for a relationship even if I wanted one.

That being said, I do use protection every time I have sex, and I get tested regularly. No shame in being sexually active as long as you take the necessary precautions.

fakepeeps7

17th Oct 2010, 10:37 PM

Well, good for you. I'm glad you can make it work without any serious repercussions. Problem is, the high teenage motherhood rate suggests that you're the exception rather than the rule.

SuicidiaParasidia

18th Oct 2010, 06:04 AM

You know, I have absolutely no experience with this, but I would think it's a lot more fun when you do it with an actual person.

not for me.

(dont say im doin it wrong, either, you werent there when it happened every time. =P sex just doesnt feel great for me. feels nice, sometimes, yeah, but largely not nearly as satisfying as my own techniques.)

that in mind; its kind of supremely annoying when people advocate that whats best for them is necessarily best for everyone. probably also a huge factor in why there are so many teen pregnancies.

in any case, im not a teen, but i wouldve loved to know there were alternatives to the goofy males of my classes trying to get me to relinquish my panties, at the time.