Clay Bennett for October 05, 2010

Great point but behind the times. Teenagers these days are making names up like Laneesha, Shaquita, Rae Rae, Fartina and Spatule. They aren’t even looking at real names.

Ther is a kid named Jed I. Knight For President in 2048?

Bristol….don’t forget Bristol

The names of tomorrow will be spoonerisms.

^funny Spoonerisms were accidents at first and then were intentional twists. I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

Don’t forget Trig.

Rottenprat: “spoonerisms” or “Petri dishisms”? With the increase in in-vitro fertilization, ala “octomom”- one must wonder wether the the accident or the intentional shows lower intellect and “morality”.

Tiger-striped Mittaines says; You say it’s hard to find a name for ONE baby? Imagine finding names for a litter of five or six! I have three sons named Spunky!

Abstinence-only sex-ed programs have not only been found to be ineffective, many school districts where they have been enforced have a higher rate of teenage pregnancy. True sex education make sure kids understand all the choices – including abstinence – and explains the mechanics of how things work well enough that they can debunk the silly methods (“make love standing up!” “If the guy bathes in hot water it’ll kill the sperm!) and either truly avoid sex or be protected when they do. Our elder daughter got hit with one of those stupid abstinence programs, and we spent a week both complaining to the Boston Archdiocese and undoing the damage, because the usual program amounts to no real information at all: just telling everyone “Don’t do it! It’s sinful! It’ll give you AIDS!” and spreading misinformation (e.g., the AIDS virus is not blocked by condoms– a myth Christine O’Donnell has spouted). Teenagers have more hormones pumping than at any other time in their lives. They see through BS like “don’t have sex, it’s not that great” in a heartbeat. Especially since many of them know that’s not true already, or 80% of the Internet wouldn’t be about sex. So take a realistic view, and get better results – including more abstinence.

Not only teenagers have hormones, human beings have hormones! Sex is what keeps the human being going. Cap it with abstinence-only sex education and disaster ensues. Ask abstinence-only catholics about their paedophile priests!

When someone is trying to castrate someone else with fear, kids try to find loopholes. It’s in their nature.

My experience with teenagers (from mine, and seeing others, and what I’ve been reading) is that high-self esteem and a sense of goals in life keeps their heads on straighter than any sex education or lecture (even though they’re also very important to have).

^^ Motive brings up a very good point. You’re more likely to achieve abstinence in teens who’ve been taught comprehensive sex ed than by teaching abstinence only. Knowledge empowers them to make wise choices. Ignorance fosters more of the same.

charlie, your statement is nonsensical and fact-free. Many of the abstinence courses – including the one I complained about – were showing horrible photos, trying to scare kids with pictures of lesions and things like that, as well as providing demonstrably false information. Whereas your notion that sex ed is “titillating soft porn” is simply nonsense. Cite an example or back off. I went to a Catholic high school in the late 1970s, and we had comprehensive and factual sex ed – yes, including condoms, IUDs, etc. – without either deceiving, covering up, or providing “soft porn.” It’s not that difficult. And can you actually cite the student pregnancy rate of the 1950s accurately? I’ll bet you can’t – in the 1950s the rate was not known accurately because so many were hidden. Try to find an abortion rate in the 1950s, too. It happened – but we don’t know how many.

Student pregnancy, charlie? At what age were girls droping out of high school to get married in the 50s?

Hmmm, I just remember how many girls in my high school either “moved” or got married before graduation. Abstinence didn’t rule, and sadly, neither did sex education telling about condoms. The same rule did exist then as now though, it’s always the GIRL’S fault for getting pregnant.

That in today’s world marriage is even more delayed than in the ’50s and 60’s, biology will pull harder than ever on folks to “revise” their thinking on abstinence. Remember, when the bible was written, puberty occurred, virginity ended at about the same time, and marriage age was reached. Life expectancy was in the late ‘30’s or early ‘40’s.

We don’t require a flagman to walk in front of every car today to warn horsemen. Rules of common sense should change with the times.

Back in the days, there was less pre-marital sex because people got married at puberty! My grandma was married at fourteen, had my uncle Fred at fifteen and was widowed the same year!

It doesn’t mean it’s normal to get married that young now, but biologically, we’re meant to have sex by that age.

You can’t fight biology. Try to cap it is like trying to cap Old Faithful.

I have never met a person who practiced abstinence that got pregnant. The last time that happened was over 2,000 years ago.

But if you are referring to those who get pregnant because only abstinence is taught in school, you are not facing the facts realistically. Even if one teacher uses a textbook to teach the students abstinence, many of the teachers at the school live immoral lifestyles, teaching the students by their actions. In addition, the schools play music that encourages an immoral lifestyle. Even in the news this past week was a school system that was being criticized for providing skimpy cheerleading outfits for their cheerleaders. Abstinence is more than just a textbook, and it needs to be taught by the whole school system, and not just one class, in order to be effective.

And even if taught by the school properly, the parents can nullify the teaching by living improper lifestyles themselves.