Text 20946, 65 rader
Skriven 2008-09-16 18:13:44 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
  Kommentar till text 20924 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Things Change
=====================
Hi Ross,

> Teach Abstinence ***AND*** birth control = Sex-ed..
> First Line of Defense = Abstain, dont do it, wait...
> Second Line Of Defense = If you must do it, then use protection etc..
>(opt in of course) Those kids whose parents opted them out can goto study hall

> Study hall isnt a bad thing either.. ;-)

Agreed on all three <grin>.

> What I keep seeing via inference, is that some say sex-ed should only teach
> birth control in the context of "when you have sex" instead of "If you have
>sex"..

Could you please point out WHERE you saw that?  I have not seen it anywhere,
except for some republican intimations that it happens, other than talking to
someone who is sexually active and intends to remain so.

> Queen).. On vacation, only knew her for 2 days, she was boy crazy.. My first
> encounter alot heavier than that occurred at age 19 with a Catholic Girl, so
> you dont have to tell me anything I dont already know.

haha.. didn't think so <grin>

> The when you have sex mentaility encourages it and sends the message of tacit
> approval.

Didn't get that one..  retype, please.  :)

> I dont know in your case, but perhaps all of your kids did wait or maybe they
>didnt, and if they didnt, maybe they got lucky and didnt have an "accident" or
>maybe they did, however it may be, I am sure that as your kids were of minorit
> age, it was more likely than not your best hope that they wouldnt?

The thing I always stressed to my kids was that books and learning were the
most important things in life (and yes, sex-ed included) because if you can
read you could learn anything.. and that we'd be there to pick them up if they
fell down. And yes, of course, it was our hope that they wouldn't have those
type problems.

>> So, are you saying that it's only _women_ who should be encouraged to
>> abstain? No, you can't mean that, since these days women are making
>> inroads into those occupations as well :)

> Not,,
> I took Roberts statement to a extreme...
> Letting nature run its course in everything, we wouldnt have skyscrapers,
> ships, bridges much less the homes we live in..
>Medically we wouldnt have stretched our life spans, cured many diseases and be
> able to cope well with physical injuries and deformities...
> Yet we have Doctors and Engineers whom have done things despite of nature..

And that's why the silly question. You can't go to extremes like that.  It's
not despite nature, it's because of nature that we control our environment.
With kids though.. You can preach to kids, you can educate them, you can hope
for what's best for them and point out the path... You can't control all the
situations they find themselves in. All you can do is be there should they fall
down.  And be realistic about the sexuality of your kids.. :)

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)