What the Safe School Czar Wants Your 7th Grader Reading

Pretty disgusting. Not because of the homosexuality but because of the sexuality. Not sure this is appropriate for 16-year-olds to read, let alone 12-year-olds.

14-Year-Old Girl Dies After Receiving Cervical Cancer Vaccine

Ann Althouse, links to this story.

Britain's publicly owned National Health Service began offering the Cervarix vaccine to teenage girls last year, and over 1.4 million doses of the vaccine have been given out so far under the program. The virus is often transmitted through sexual intercourse and authorities wanted to give the vaccine to girls as young as 13 so they are protected by the time they become sexually active.

Althouse makes the point I've made before:

Isn't it strange how we are completely outraged by a man having sex with a 13-year-old girl and at the same time we've given up on keeping 13-year-old girls from having sex?

Cervical cancer is a serious disease, but it's not something that suddenly strikes children like polio or whooping cough. There is some conscious mind involved in the decision to have sexual intercourse. Why must the vaccine be foisted at such an early age on girls who might prefer to avoid sexual intercourse with multiple partners, at least until they are older, and who can make a decision when they are 18 whether they want the vaccine or the risk of cancer? I don't see the justification for treating young girls this way.

Leftwingers could tell you the justification. They're going to have sex anyway, so we need to give them "information" that helps them have sex. It's a perverse way of looking at it, but certainly no more perverse than Amanda Marcotte's, the barren woman who thinks the only reason parents don't want their children given an unnecessary vaccine is because they don't want to admit their kids might have sex.

Althouse is right that we're all up in arms that a 44-year-old man raping a 13-year-old is being treated as a civil rights issue by Hollywood morons, but you have to wonder if the same people would have also been ok with giving that 13-year-old Gardasil. Because, you know, they're gonna do it anyway.

Teenagers Are Gonna Have Sex, So Let's Help Them Out!

That's the message moonbats have about teenage sex.

Perhaps instead of gearing our entire system of sex ed towards a distinct religious minority made largely of upper middle-class white Christian conservatives we could, oh, I don’t know, not do that? We could approach the entire nation of under-18 potential sex-havers as uptight WASPs who’ll be persuaded by hamhanded references to knights and princesses and condoms t=hat work like penis netting rather than prophylactics,

Or we could use the screwed up (pun intended) approach of leftwing nuts who think emphasizing self-control is for the weak and teaching children that having sex as children has frequent and undesirable outcomes is old fashioned. That approach, of course, is to spend endless time helping teenagers "explore" their sexuality and not bother teaching them that there's only one way to avoid pregnancy when you really, really, really don't want it (and it's not abortion).

but given that we aren’t all Those People, it would make a lot more sense to maybe switch it up.

Nothing racist or classist about "Those People," is there?

It always amazes me that people who approach everything else with a supreme reverence for federalism believe that we can talk an entire nation of horny teenagers out of having sex based on what scares Timmy and Tammy Whitebread of Anytown, U.S.A.

What the hell does this mean? One of the logical fallacies so prevalent at Pandagon (and other batshit crazy sites) is this strawman argument that conservatives think no child will have sex if you teach abstinence only. No person on this planet believes abstinence only education can have a 100% success rate. But what morons fail to understand when they reference these discussions is that telling kids they're gonna have sex doesn't do a lot to discourage them from doing it.

This approach is designed to teach children that sex is great...as long as you wear a condom. Forget all that love and marriage and commitment stuff. Just get it on with whoever you feel like today. So, if that includes half the guys in the marching band (or girls, since we want to be inclusive), then that's just dandy. Guilt and standards are for losers.

273

That's the number of reasons there are to have sex, according to a group of psychologists at the University of Texas at Austin.

Why 273? Well, the researchers asked 400 people to give their reasons for having sex, then asked 1,500 others to rate the reasons in importance. The list includes:

-- "I was drunk."

--"I wanted to feel closer to God."

-- "It's a good cure for a headache."

-- "Someone dared me."

-- "To burn calories."

-- "To return a favor."

-- "I was curious about sex."

You get the idea. Why have sex? Just because!

UPDATE: Sister Toldjah laments that love takes a backseat to hormones in the survey.

Top 10 Reasons To Have Sex For Men

I was attracted to the person.

It feels good.

I wanted to experience physical pleasure.

It’s fun.

I wanted to show my affection to the person.

I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.

I was “horny.”

I wanted to express my love for the person.

I wanted to achieve an orgasm.

I wanted to please my partner.

Top 10 Reasons To Have Sex For Women

I was attracted to the person.

I wanted to experience physical pleasure.

It feels good.

I wanted to show my affection to the person.

I wanted to express my love for the person.

I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.

I was “horny.”

It’s fun.

I realized I was in love.

I was “in the heat of the moment.”

Evidently, Talking about Condoms Hasn't Helped Much

There's a troll at CSPT who is thoroughly convinced that the way to bring down teenage pregnancy rates is so-called comprehensive sex education in which condom usage is pushed. Regardless of how many times this theory is shot down, the troll continues to merrily spin it.

Well, now we have a study from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stating that so-called comprehensive sex education mentions "abstinence" just 321 times, while discussing "condoms" 2,763 times.

The study, conducted by medical professionals, looked closely at some of the most common CSE curricula currently in use in an attempt to see if the content was truthful and truly comprehensive. A cursory review of the study shows that the materials distributed by the "comprehensive" programs mention abstinence only 321 times.

In contrast the materials mention usage of condoms 2,763 times - and only mention condom failure rates a total of 23 times! The study showed these programs have very little impact on increasing condom use among children, and even less impact in delaying sexual activities - the latter being no surprise considering the focus on condoms instead of abstaining.

Liberals frequently scoff at the idea of teaching abstinence "because kids are going to have sex." But that's not exactly true, since, if kids were going to have sex they would all or nearly all be doing so. What we know is that close to half of all teens have sex--but "teens" includes adults age 18 and 19. And while I'd rather even these "teens" not have sex, parents are mainly concerned about their junior high- and high school-aged teens (12 to 18 years old). The study didn't state how many of the nearly 50% of teens having sex were adults.