Slutty Girls and Stupid Boys: Today’s Abstinence-Only “Education”


One of the common themes that you’ll find in abstinence-only sex
education curricula (besides factual errors, conservative ideology and
demonization of condoms) is the constant shaming or judgmental
statements towards young women who don’t uphold certain visual
standards of chaste and purity.

Young women are taught to not show skin or flirt, lest they invite
dirty lustful thoughts in the boys, who are rendered helpless beasts
when tempted by the girls of ill-repute. Not only does such "education"
insult the intelligence of young people, but it reinforces harmful
gender stereotypes.

Let’s take a tour through the states to look at some of the most egregious examples:

In South Carolina, Heritage Community Services (currently receives a CBAE grant of $600,000 per year from 2006-2011) teaches girls that conservative attire is necessary, or those poor boys will virtually attack you. Here is an excerpt from their classroom curriculum:

"Males and females are aroused at different levels of intimacy.
Males are more sight oriented, whereas females are more touch oriented.
This is why girls need to be careful with what they wear,
because males are looking! The girl might be thinking fashion, while
the boy is thinking sex. For this reason, girls have a responsibility
to wear modest clothing that doesn’t invite lustful thoughts.
"

Yes indeed, girls. It is your duty to the country. More from HCS’s website:

"a good minimum guideline is to declare everything covered by a
bathing suit as off limits. Everyone needs to know his or her
boundaries before getting in a risky situation. Once someone is excited
physically, it can be difficult to stop."

Teen Awareness, Inc., out of California (received $3.2 million in CBAE grants) agrees:

"be careful about how you dress (are you sending the wrong message?)"

As do Abstinence Education Consultants in Kansas (has received $3.1 million in CBAE grants). From their website:

"Dress modestly. Sometimes the way you dress can send unintended
messages to others, especially men because they are sexually aroused by
what they see"

The theme being expressed, with our tax dollars’ subsidization, is not only that girls have a responsibility
to dress like puritans or whatever it is that these groups are
advocating, but that if they don’t, young men are uncontrollable dolts
who will, presumably, "force" sex upon them. LifeGuard Youth Development in Missouri (has received $3 million in CBAE grants) reinforces this insult:

"Guys can be compared to a microwave. They see something enticing and like 30 seconds later, they are ready to go! Because
we know they are using only one side of their brain at a time (logic
and not emotion) and their testosterone causes their sex drive to
always be "ON," generally they may not connect feelings with the act of
having sex
. Girls can be compared to a slow cooker. Usually,
for a girl to be turned on, a whole lot of time, attention, words,
affection, and touch needs to be slowly added before she is aroused.
These actions engage her emotions and for her, sex does equal a
personal relationship."

Yes, this is the "science" that our government subsidizes.

But a quick glance around at other abstinence-only programs shows that
not all girls are "slow cookers." Oh no, some of them are pure trouble. You know, those girls who show skin and flirt, tempting your poor son into a sex-crazed madness.

In Indiana, A Positive Approach to Teen Health, Inc. (receiving a $600,000 CBAE grant each year from 2007-2011) asks why these troublesome girls have the audacity to flirt with boys:

"Sometimes girls flirt to get attention. They may want to feel
they are attractive to guys. Looking for this attention may be cover
for underlying insecurities, and having this attention lets them think
they are at least good at one thing."

Yes, that makes sense. Because flirting with the opposite
sex is certainly not normal, biological behavior. There has to be
something psychologically wrong with these deviants, this being the
"only thing they are good at", obviously. Colorado’s Friends First (receiving a $414,800 AFLA grant
each year from 2007-2011) agrees, saying these troublesome girls who
flirt must lack "parental communication and boundary settings" in their
own home.

These programs gleefully promote and teach others to point fingers at
girls in their school that have "gone all the way". "Slut-shaming" is
par for the course, as Missouri’s LifeGuard Youth Development lets
everyone know what to call these young women:

"Being able to have sex does not make you any different from a rat
in a warehouse. They have sex too. Is that what you want to compare
yourself to?"

(i.e., hint, hint, "slutty" girls are rats, spread the word!)

South Dakota’s Alpha Center (received $1.2 million in CBAE grants) elaborates:

"Nobody wants to marry someone who has been the loving, meaningful relationship of 17 other guys."

The worst combination of these themes of "slutty girls" and "uncontrollable sex beast guys" came from Ohio’s ATM Education website (receiving $600,000 CBAE grant
each year from 2006-2011). Before we shamed them into changing their
site, you could enter the "Party Room", where you learn the story of
Rochelle, Jason, Monica and Tanner. Each person tells their perspective
about what happens during and after a party one night.

Rochelle tells how she drove her drunken friend Jason home after the
party, and then is raped by him. Jason denies that the rape happened,
saying their sex was consensual. Monica and Tanner observe that Jason
was being a drunken idiot the entire night, with Monica (Jason’s ex)
adding her opinion that Rochelle has a reputation for "putting out" and
being a "slut."

The site then asks the question: "Based on all accounts, whose story sounds the least credible?"

Guess who the "correct" answer was? Rochelle.

Why? Because she had a supposed reputation as a "slut." Therefore she is not to be believed.

Jason, on the other hand, is given a pass, because he was drunk, "vulnerable," and with a "hot" girl in a car.

Boys will be boys, right? They can’t help it if they get tempted by one of "those" girls.

Fortunately, ATM Education was shamed into changing the language on their site,
but if you look at the language of these abstinence-only until marriage
programs all over the country, it’s not difficult to believe that one
of these programs would make such statements.

Currently, the Obama administration is finalizing the details on their
2010 fiscal budget, and they will have to make a decision: (A) continue
to fund these abstinence-only sex education programs that have already
wasted $1.5 billion in tax dollars and endangered the sexual health of
countless youth over the past decade? Or (B) zero out funding for these
ab-only programs, instead bringing real, age-appropriate comprehensive
sex education to our schools that gives youth all of the information
they need to stay safe and avoid pregnancy.

What can you do?

WRITE OBAMA AND TELL HIM TO ZERO OUT ABSTINENCE-ONLY FUNDING!


And tell your Congressperson too!

This post is cross-posted at Amplify.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • jodi-jacobson

    It is critical to offer these concrete examples of the misinformation, and stigmatizing and discriminatory material taught in these programs. These programs are not about creating a platform for the responsible exercise of sexual rights or the attainment of reproductive sexual and health throughout a lifetime. Indeed, as research shows they do nothing to improve outcomes. The President and Congress need to completely defund these programs as you note, and in their place fund reputable health organizations to do the kinds of programming that works to protect teens, and to build the foundation of sexually responsible and mature adults.

    Thanks for your research on these groups.

    Jodi

  • invalid-0

    Our daughters need to hear that when they dress a certain way, there are people who will view them as ‘sluts’. They need to hear that that type of thinking is wrong – but since it definately exists, we are doing them a disservice if we don’t tell them. Our sons need to hear us counter the ‘revealing clothing equals slut’ message. Our children all need to hear about the tremendous power of the fashion industry and advertising. We need to learn ways to counter those powerful messages.

  • invalid-0

    Parents need to do their JOBS as PARENTS and educate BOTH boys and girls on self respect! A child only learns what he or she lives, so if the parents are messed up the child will be too. I guess that is where sex ed in schools is important,just as healthy eating, exercise and many other issues that parents do not seem to be teaching their children. Is it that when people have children they do not realize what an enormous responsibility it is to raise a healthy happy law abiding citizen? I don’t get it. My child was my number 1 priority at all times even past age 18. I had to make many sacrifices but it was so worth it!!
    Maybe they should teach parenting as a major class. If kids had to live the responsibilities maybe they would think before they leaped into sex.

  • invalid-0

    Isn’t it curious how mens’ solution to having sexual feelings aroused by women is not to master themselves but to cover up all women all the time? This is especially contemptible when done in the name of religion, as it so often is.

    These people are despicable. I truly believe that many of them (including some women) would condone the ultimate expression of this fear of, and contempt for, women — the burkha.

    ‘Scuse the rant. I’ll go write the Prez now.

  • invalid-0

    Isn’t it curious how mens’ solution to having sexual feelings aroused by women is not to master themselves but to cover up all women all the time?

    I can just imagine this thinking applied to the obesity epidemic—hide the food!

    I truly believe that many of them (including some women) would condone the ultimate expression of this fear of, and contempt for, women — the burkha.

    They should borrow a great line from countries where it is prevalent: “If you leave meat uncovered, it will attract flies!”

  • invalid-0

    It doesn’t matter what our daughters wear. Someone, somewhere will think they look slutty. Remember moms, if your hair is uncovered, there are people out there who think you look like a whore, too. Your daughter doesn’t need you to add to the pile on; the world will do it for you soon enough.

  • harry834

    There is nothing impossible about demanding that men use self-restraint, and if they don’t, they should be punished. I believe that some can learn from a first wrong, but they still must learn that THEY, not the girls, made them do it.

    "Your daughter doesn’t need you to add to the pile on; the world will do it for you soon enough."

    I’m so tired of people advocating for people to hide. And I’m tired of being blamed for what rapists do simply because I refuse to advocate for hiding and reject those who do advocate this.

    We can scold our daughters all we want for not covering up. The rapists will still do their thing. And we will be busy blaming our daughters, our discipline of our daughters, the tolerant parents of daughters…we will blame all these things and anything but the one truly the responsible: the male rapist, his friends who covered for him, and HIS parents, and the teachers who wanted to avoid controversy.

    Damn the teachers who won’t stop rape, who care about their image over the girls life.

  • harry834

    "Our daughters need to hear that when they dress a certain way, there
    are people who will view them as ‘sluts’. They need to hear that that
    type of thinking is wrong – but since it definately exists, we are
    doing them a disservice if we don’t tell them."

    The people who think this way are scum.

    I don’t care how many there are of them. I don’t care what their position of authority is. I don’t care if they do community service. I don’t care if they are otherwise nice. 

    If they think this way, they are rats, and scum. And no one should cater to their views. They don’t have values. They have issues.

    • invalid-0

      Thank you, Harry, for so clearly stating what is so very true.

  • invalid-0

    You go Harry

  • jodi-jacobson

    I think you are confusing respect for the body and self, including self-esteem, with how people dress. As a mom of two children, we talk about “appropriate dress” in the context of the activity, event, or occasion for which one is dressing. My kids are taught to respect their bodies and themselves. They are also taught that they need to dress in clean and appropriate clothing. They can not go to synagogue, for example, in soccer clothes. They can’t go to a Saturday night event in jeans with a hole in the knee. I let them make the decisions about what they wear, in the context of what is appropriate for that occasion. As they get older, they will take more control of those decisions and make those choices wholly on their own, and hopefully will reflect their own self=respect and and self-esteem.

    For a very long time, my daughter only wanted to dress in t-shirts and soccer shorts (knee-length in case you are wondering). She knew that to go to school like this meant having clean clothes without holes, tears, etc. Otherwise it was her decision. Because she was not a “dressy” girl, one child (another girl) sent around an email saying she dressed “like a man.” I was proud and also astonished at how well she handled it. She knew who she was, who are friends are, and who she wanted to be. It did not faze her. Interestingly, equal numbers of boys and girls called and emailed her to say how cruel this was and how sorry they were for this kid. The point being that when you build a strong sense of self, you can make good choices about friends and have a solid core about who you are.

    Building self-esteem and self-respect is a very different strategy than telling girls they deserve rape, ogling, harassment, stares, or are responsible for “inciting men” based on how they dress. It is not about self- respect or self-esteem. It is about fear, domination, subjugation and patriarchy. That would be an apt description of the ridiculous examples funded by US tax dollars cited by Joe. That is also the basis of fundamentalist ideologies that, for example, consider women “whores” as you say, if you don’t cover your hair. I do not wish to bring up either my daughter or my son having their perspectives delimited by the beliefs of others we do not share. We can respect their beliefs, but we do not have to participate in legitimizing the basis of such claims.

    This is not about how girls dress. This is about telling girl’s its “their fault.” That is not ok.

    Jodi Jacobson

  • jodi-jacobson

    I think you are confusing respect for the body and self, including self-esteem, with how people dress. As a mom of two children, we talk about “appropriate dress” in the context of the activity, event, or occasion for which one is dressing. My kids are taught to respect their bodies and themselves. They are also taught that they need to dress in clean and appropriate clothing. They can not go to synagogue, for example, in soccer clothes. They can’t go to a Saturday night event in jeans with a hole in the knee. I let them make the decisions about what they wear, in the context of what is appropriate for that occasion. As they get older, they will take more control of those decisions and make those choices wholly on their own, and hopefully will reflect their own self=respect and and self-esteem.

    For a very long time, my daughter only wanted to dress in t-shirts and soccer shorts (knee-length in case you are wondering). She knew that to go to school like this meant having clean clothes without holes, tears, etc. Otherwise it was her decision. Because she was not a “dressy” girl, one child (another girl) sent around an email saying she dressed “like a man.” I was proud and also astonished at how well she handled it. She knew who she was, who are friends are, and who she wanted to be. It did not faze her. Interestingly, equal numbers of boys and girls called and emailed her to say how cruel this was and how sorry they were for this kid. The point being that when you build a strong sense of self, you can make good choices about friends and have a solid core about who you are.

    Building self-esteem and self-respect is a very different strategy than telling girls they deserve rape, ogling, harassment, stares, or are responsible for “inciting men” based on how they dress. It is not about self- respect or self-esteem. It is about fear, domination, subjugation and patriarchy. That would be an apt description of the ridiculous examples funded by US tax dollars cited by Joe. That is also the basis of fundamentalist ideologies that, for example, consider women “whores” as you say, if you don’t cover your hair. I do not wish to bring up either my daughter or my son having their perspectives delimited by the beliefs of others we do not share. We can respect their beliefs, but we do not have to participate in legitimizing the basis of such claims.

    This is not about how girls dress. This is about telling girl’s its “their fault.” That is not ok.

    Jodi Jacobson

  • invalid-0

    Henry – You got that right. Theses people really do have “issues” not values. And if scantily clad women are as responsible for out of control male horniness as the “issues with sexy women” people say they are, they need to explain why young dudes are not “getting it on” with themselves in front of news stands and billboards everywhere. Fortunately, as I live in a major urban area with sexy images aplenty, these resentful unsophisticates are wrong.

  • invalid-0

    I found this to be very helpful. I am an artist and I was doing some research in image and body and women. And this explains a lot.
    Women ARE considered objects (by horny bastards who cant control themselves) A women should be free to wear what she wants without falling into a ‘stereotype’.
    People are hypocrites! They expect us to not show any flesh, any of our curves and skin, and body…sometimes not even the hair…WTF?!?!?!
    Hell no!
    Stop teaching retarded things to girls in school, and stop giving funds to those shitty people that come up with that nonesense.

  • invalid-0

    No offence..
    But some of the comments made about this supposed “inappropriate material” are a tad harsh and critical.

    E.g.

    1. “Dress modestly. Sometimes the way you dress can send unintended messages to others, especially men because they are sexually aroused by what they see”

    To be honest, i think this is practical sensible advice. Yes, we do have freedom to dress how we choose, however this does not mean we shouldn’t think about how we portray ourselves. And yes, I understand that some of these sexist stereotypes are unfair, but the reality is that some men do have issues, and the way we dress, e.g. a thong, mini skirt and boob tube to a party where there is an abundance of alcohol supplied, is not ‘smart, practical thinking’
    I think this quote is helping girls ‘think smart’ about the situations which may arise, which are often not direct consequences of their clothing choices.

    2. “Sometimes girls flirt to get attention. They may want to feel they are attractive to guys. Looking for this attention may be cover for underlying insecurities, and having this attention lets them think they are at least good at one thing.”

    Your comment to this quote was sarcastic and judgemental.
    However, what seems to mystify me is how you gathered that this exert means that ALL FLIRTING IS TO GET ATTENTION.
    I do agree with you that flirting is a normal biological way of attracting a partner; however the exert clearly states “SOMETIMES”it is for attentions sake.
    As a girl with her fair share of male friends I certainly admit to being guilty of flirting to grab someone’s attention. And I think, although the quote could be more eloquently worded, it does warn the girls that flirting is not the answer to satisfy underlying insecurities.

    In conclusion, I find your article to be interesting and raise important issues and questions, however maybe you need to re-read your comments and allusions so that you are not creating a harsh and slightly aggressive mindset for those who read this article.
    Remember people, keep an open mind. Even if you don’t agree with something there is great worth in looking at something from all angles and perspectives. =]

    p.s Joe Sonka, an email explaining your thoughts on my comments would be much appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you.

  • invalid-0

    In an ideal world girls should be allowed to wear what they want when they want to.

    However, we do not live in an ideal world, but in reality.
    And the reality of the situation is that some men do have issues and scantily clad clothing is a sign in their minds that the girl ‘wants it’ or is a ‘slut’

    so the schools are teaching the reality of the situation rather than the ‘politically correct’ version of the truth.

    If I had the choice to teach my daughter the reality or the ideal situation I will always chose the reality.
    Because I don’t want my daughter getting hurt due to her ignorance.

    And I’m sure if you all had the choice you would chose reality over ignorance as well.

  • invalid-0

    A comprehensive sex-ed approach gives the facts and is proven to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancy and STI transmission. One would logically think this is what the ultimate goals of sex-ed should be. It is disgusting that our tax dollars are being used to fund a program that is giving false information about sexual health! Sex-ed should not be a soap box for moral beliefs on how one should sexually behave. And it should NEVER further entrench the dangerous stereotypes that sex is a woman’s responsibility because a man’s beastly, sexual urges can not be controlled!

  • invalid-0

    “Be the change you wish to see in the world”
    -Ghandi

    Seems the sacrifice is worth it in every location other than a dark alley

    • invalid-0

      If you’re using this quote the way I think you’re using it, as in saying that women shouldn’t dress provacatively if they don’t want to be attacked in a dark alleyway, then you’re using the quote wrong. Using your line of thinking, if Ghandi didn’t want to get himself assasinated, he shouldn’t have been such an outspoken activist. What the quote means is that if someone see a problem with the world, then they need to get themselves to fix that problem. It’s more of an activist calling then a calling to dress modestly.

  • colleen

    </b>

    "To be honest, i think this is practical sensible advice."

    No it’s not. Look, the implication is that the way a woman dresses allows her to control the sexual urges of men. I have 2 problems with this notion. 

    1. Young men need to learn self control, not be told that their ‘testosterone’ renders them uncontrollable . Indeed way too many older men never have learned self control and thus have never grown up. This notion, that women must and should always live and dress  in a manner that adapts to the uncontrollable urges of men is part of what makes for the rape prone culture we’re all forced to live in. This isn’t sex education for women because it implies that women are responsible for the lusts of men. And, while it does help me explain the enormous and entirely unwarranted senses of entitlement I’m seeing coming from many young men these days, it’s certainly not sex education for them either.
    2. Dressing modestly does not work to reduce sex crimes. Dress modestly in a FLDS compound and you’ll end up the pregnant  6th wife of a 50 year old monster at 14. Likewise, There are lots of rapes in countries where the habib or burka is worn. Indeed I cannot think of a culture which embraces the notion that women are responsible for the sexual urges of men and thus should dress appropriately which is not rape prone.

    I certainly agree with the notion that young women need to understand how to protect themselves but this isn’t teaching them that, particularly when coupled with the social conservative stereotypes of ‘good’ girls and ‘bad’ girls and only normal boys who can’t help themselves.What it is teaching young people is that guys with what you call ‘issues’ are normal and understandable.

    I disagree that a rewrite is in order. I am appalled that taxpayers are forced to subsidize this sort of crap. 

     

  • invalid-0

    I mean really are we not the top of the food chain? Men need to learn self control. Stop making women “hide” under their clothes. I mean I would certainly not want to disrespect anyone by wearing a mini skirt to a black tie event. Just be realistic and stop BLAMING WOMEN for EVERYTHING! Geez this is old.

  • invalid-0

    I recently heard a lecture on ethics, amongst other things sexual ethics. One point he made which I quite agree with was that women’s role in society has been devalued and degraded with religious patriarchal views and it has been, for example, a sin for a woman to refuse sexual access to her husband.
    When society realised this was wrong, instead of promoting women to be part of the community they removed religion and freed them from the boundaries.
    Men weren’t happy with women being ‘free’ as this means less ‘privaleges’ for them, so they tried to influence them more subtly by suggesting that to demonsrate this freedom they should dress more revealingly. Neither the men nor the women knew this was happening consciously but the media was born and women took pleasure as being the ‘most free’ from boundaries. Fashion, celebrities, sexual appeal, make-up at earlier and earlier ages etc. came about.
    Both men and women accept this new system that women ‘need’ to ‘prove’ their ‘freedom’. Men get what they want at the animal level, sex, and women get what they want at the historical level, freedom.
    The introduction of contraceptives and disease protection was a catalyst and now it is accepted as the norm.
    When women dress up and men seek them for sex they are both resorting to their animal instinct and dehumanising each other.
    I am in no way saying that sex is bad or that women shouldnt dress up or that people shouldn’t have fun, but that people should remain in control of their emotions and their desires and properly think about everything using their reason/intelligence.
    When this happens I believe there will be significantly less unwanted pregnancies, fewer teenage pregnancies, higher STD conrtol, less unhappiness in relationships, lower divorce rate and better sex lives of the entire adult population of those who partake in this.
    The religious people know what is right but f*ck up the presentation of it as dogmatic BS. Give people the real reasons and they will at least consider it as an option.
    Being a fundamental fanatic will get you nowhere and giving children this crap will do no good whatsoever but just think about how great it was hundreds of years ago when there was no pressure from anyone in sexual issues. It was only you and them, enough calm to know if you love them earlier and marry if so. So much better that today’s ridiculous divorce rate.

  • invalid-0

    Because we know they are using only one side of their brain at a time (logic and not emotion) and their testosterone causes their sex drive to always be “ON,” generally they may not connect feelings with the act of having sex.

    That’s a fliperoonie, isn’t it? Boys are logical and not emotional, even when they’re behaving like yard apes? Lust IS an emotion. If it were a logical and NOT an emotional thing, then those poor patriarchs would have to consider that the woman or girl they are lusting over is not their possession to do with as they please, and that the lust comes from within, not from something she did. However, it’s just easier to uphold male privilege and gender stereotypes than tell the truth, isn’t it, fundies?

  • invalid-0

    princess rot: good point!

    joe sonka: thanks for this excellent piece. i was raised in the midwest, where a lot of the ideas you mention around sexuality and gender are simply taken for granted as neutral fact. and as a female, i think it massively screwed me up! i’m in my 30s now, and far away from the midwest, and i’m still trying to dig my way out of the self-image that was borne of these ideas. it’s great to see these stereotypes held up to the light of reason, and it’s excellent you’re flagging them up in the context of this unbelievable, unforgivable government funding program. we all really must get involved to stop this mess. keep up the great work!

    • joe-sonka

      there’s more where that came from (unfortunately…)

  • sayna

    Men are heartless, brainless animals and women are ignorant sluts? Women should have to worry because men can’t control themselves? These notions are as insulting as they are absurd.

    When dress modestly, the standards for “immodest” clothing just become more extreme and ridiculous. Remember, in Victorian times ankles were considered erotic and obscene! In Persepolis, Majane Satrapi’s graphic novel-memoir about growing up in Iran during the fundamentalist revolution, she writes about how her mother was verbally harrassed for having a few strands of hair showing. In contrast, there are cultures where people are nearly nude all the time and women show their breasts and it’s not considered sexual at all.

    If anything, this attitude promotes rape and sexual harrassment. The man can just blame it on the woman because her clothing made him unable to control himself!

    The men in my life see cleavage, legs, bikins and the like all the time but they manage to not sexually harrass or rape women. I don’t exactly see this as a Herculean effort and I’m pretty sure they don’t either.

  • http://www.birdsandbeesandkids.com invalid-0

    Thanks for this thoughful post about the language we use to “help” kids make better choices, as well as the discussion of clothing.

    As parents we need to talk to kids about the choice they make when they pick their clothing. And when our kids are young, we need to think about the clothing we select for our kids!

    Our clothes do send messages, and that’s fine, but we need to give our kids the skills to descern what the message is, and what the implications could be.

    Mass marketing is teaching our girls they need to look sexy to be important and worthwhile and this insideous message is hard to avoid. Parents can help combat it by talking to kids about these messages and helping them make more appropriate choices.

  • invalid-0

    I am currently in high school, and every day in health I have to have this ab-only crap shoved in my face. What I’ve learned so far is that sex before marriage will destroy my dreams and goals in life, not to mention it will undoubtedly give me some horrible disease that will make me miserable for the rest of my life. The only thing I’ve learned about prevention is one sentence about how condoms are bound to fail, because we’re all slutty idiots who couldn’t possibly figure out how to use one. And why would they want to teach us how to use one? After all, this is health! they want to promote a happy life, not one with all this evil sex and condoms! it’s infuriating that we’re actually required to learn that every stereotype we’ve ever heard about those evil sex-seeking fiends out there is true.
    Why won’t schools just do what they’re supposed to do and just educate us with the facts?

  • invalid-0

    I disagree with some of the things you’ve said. Like how religion is right but mess up communicating the message (which is a whole other discussion).
    I mostly take issue with this:

    …but just think about how great it was hundreds of years ago when there was no pressure from anyone in sexual issues. It was only you and them, enough calm to know if you love them earlier and marry if so. So much better that today’s ridiculous divorce rate.

    You do realize that hundreds of years ago, love usually had nothing to do with marriage right? Marriage was more of a business deal than anything. And divorce was illegal. So please, no erasing history for the sake of nostalgia. It tends to mess up what the decisions we make today.

  • http://www.parasistem.com invalid-0

    Girls tend to like toys and other objects they can interact with, while boys will more likely prefer “things that they can manipulate and do things to. Girl guides is reall great and it is a great way to meet new people. Slightly fewer girls are born than boys (in the US this ratio is about 49 girls born for every 51 boys), but girls may be slightly more likely than boys to survive childhood and moreover, women have a longer life expectancy than men.

  • invalid-0

    I grew up in a Mormon household (and then jumped ship at around 15, and now i’m an atheist). It’s scary how closely much of this resembles what we were told as adolescent Mormons. The girls were told strictly to dress very modestly and that they couldn’t trust guys if their collar bone was exposed. We were forbidden from dating until the age of 16 (and that’s a church-wide rule), and then told that we should only go on dates with large groups and in public places, and shouldn’t go “steady,” with anyone, and not to do things that involved being horizontal, such as watching a movie at someone’s house. “Avoid the horizontal position,” was a pretty common thing to hear. We were told not to date people outside the church, and not to associate with people of slightly looser “morals.” And of course abstinence until marriage is a given after all of this, so between that and the discouragement from dating anyone for any lengthy period of time, is why most Mormons get married within 2 months of meeting their spouse. (But despite that, Mormons have one of the lowest divorce rates of any group of people.)

  • invalid-0

    Your post is absurdly one-sided. You sound like a horny teenager who gets pissy when girls are told that they should be dignified and in charge of their own purity. Asking girls to cover up is not wrong. I’m sure you know from personal experience that when you see a scantily clad girl or woman you get a rise from it. Men are visually stimulated and when women do not cover themselves up they are helping their brothers to stumble.
    Abstinence can work if talked about and taught correctly. Is the rate of success at keeping kids abstinent 100%? Of course not, but nothing is. This does not mean that we should give up and lessen our standards. The further down the sexual slope we go, the worse and worse our society is going t get.
    Get your head out of the gutter and give kids back their innocence.

  • invalid-0

    Asking girls to cover up is not wrong. I’m sure you know from personal experience that when you see a scantily clad girl or woman you get a rise from it. Men are visually stimulated and when women do not cover themselves up they are helping their brothers to stumble.

    Any man who cannot control himself at the sight of a scantily clad girl/woman should check himself into an institution before he ends up committing rape. I think this issue of out-of-control men is much more alarming and dangerous than women who wear miniskirts—don’t you?

    • invalid-0

      While your first comment is correct….it doesn’t really relate to what you’re arguing against.
      The point made was simply that because of the basic equation of: (girl in scanty clothing=guy gets a rise out of it), that it would be appreciated if girls would be a little less flashy in the way they dress. A guy’s control or lack thereof was never mentioned as being a result of the way a girl dresses or not.
      I mean, if you’re gonna take a shot at someones idea, at least make sure you’re referring to what they actually said.

  • colleen

    "A guy’s control or lack thereof was never mentioned as being a result of the way a girl dresses or not."

     Bullshit. Here is what he said:

     

    Men are visually stimulated and when women do not cover themselves up they are helping their brothers to stumble.

    The problem with men like the writer is that they have not grown up enough to take responsibility for their own desires.and sexual reactions and instead blame their arousal and feelings on whatever hapless person, animal or object has stimulated them. If this is the sort of male entitlement the ab-only folks are teaching than it’s no wonder that the OOW birthrate is at 40%

     

  • invalid-0

    I was referring to the exaggeration that(paraphrasing)”if a man cant control himself, he needs to check himself into an institution” The point wasn’t that a man isn’t responsible for rape. Thats a red herring, a reply, but not relating to the point at hand.

    That was what i was commenting on, sorry for the confusion.

  • invalid-0

    Just goes to show where the intelligence and moral rate of our society is going. I really hope you don’t think the Founding Fathers would be proud of you . . .

  • http://www.mysafeflorida.org/ invalid-0

    When it’s all said and done, many people, especially the younger generation are overwhelmed by their hormones. I think that it has to start in the home where parents need to be more strict if they don’t like their kids (especially daughters) behaving in a certain way. I definitely believe that it is a waste of tax payer money to support programs like this.

  • invalid-0

    When it’s all said and done, many people, especially the younger generation are overwhelmed by their hormones.

    Why “especially” the younger generation? Did the young people of generations past not have hormones as strong as today’s?

    I think that it has to start in the home where parents need to be more strict

    Why more strict? That just makes teens want to rebel all the more. Weren’t you a teen, once?

    if they don’t like their kids (especially daughters) behaving in a certain way.

    Why “especially daughters?” Is it more okay for young men to behave in this “certain way” than young women? Why is that?

    I definitely believe that it is a waste of tax payer money to support programs like this.

    No disagreement there.

  • farhaj

    Such relationships should be kept aside as they not only create problems but even tend to destroy family Relationships.

    sea weed

  • invalid-0

    I trully believe that all girls and boys in our universitt shuold read this blog and article.Brunette escort girls
    will leave UK soon but if you will protect them you will enjoy this pleasure a lot of time!

  • invalid-0

    the header of this blog is a wonderfull , i like it like London escorts

  • invalid-0

    Teen are CHILDREN. They act hastily and often make poor decisions…even the best kids from the best homes! I know ’cause I was one of those teens. I now have HPV. Why you all think that young bodies were meant to be having sexual partners is beyond me (as a parent). Young and older boys often USE girls for sex. The stats show that girls are looking for relationships (love) while the boys are interested in a good time. Loneliness, feelings of being used, disease,dropping out of school, pregnancy, abortion, a bad reputation, etc, are all too common consequences of girls having sex as teens. This high school teacher has seen the effects! It’s sadly fascinating that people are upset about “sexting” but not about immature people (ie teens) having sex! Where do you get your thought process. Not every child has parents who talk about morality, God, safety, boys, girls, date rape, gang rape, etc. And the sex programs in our public outlawed the use of the word “marriage” and “love” in the lessons. It’s as if we are telling the kids it’s great to have sex when you are too immature and too irresponsible and too needy and don’t know what love is. What foolish “adults” we are! We shall talk to our children about sex (and started at age 6); the public schools shall not!