Strollerderby : sex ed

Did Sarah Palin Know That Bristol Was Sleeping With Levi?

Brett Singer — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:07:00 GMT

In an interview with Tyra Banks that will air on Monday, Levi Johnston says that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin "probably knew" that he was having sex with her daughter Bristol. Levi also tells Tyra that Mama Palin allowed the young lovers to sleep in the same bed at her home.

Well. As the Church Lady might say, isn't that special.

It's all well and good to scream and holler about how "the media" should "leave these kids alone," as Angie Harmon recently did on Fox News. But someone needs to tell these kids to stop doing so many interviews. I mean, Tyra? Really Levi? Why? If the reason is "because they asked," someone needs to point out to the young hockey player that "no thanks" is an acceptable reply.

Over at ParentDish, Susan Wagner writes that Bristol and Levi "clearly they haven't been getting very good guidance from the adults in their lives. It's our job as parents to help our teens mature into responsible people, and sometimes that means saying no -- to sex and to interviews." Funny how the advice from "the media" can be better than whatever these two seem to be getting from their own parents.

Source: US Magazine via AOL ParentDish

Image: FameCrawler

Madonna Adoption Denied, Appeal Filed

Family Awarded Millions For Circumcision Mistake

Woman Will Go Free If Son Comes Back To Life

Finish Line - April Fools And More

Judge to Mom: Spank Your Kid or Pay Up

Babble Talk: Do We Still Judge Women for Having C-Sections?

Oops! Sex Positions Booklet Accidentally Handed Out to Kids

Madeline Holler — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:31:00 GMT

Some parents in the U.K. were in an uproar recently after their children were accidentally given booklets containing explicit illustrations of sex positions.

The book "How to Change the World With a Fiver," was handed out to 42 fourth-graders during a field-trip to a supermarket.

Nobody really noticed the blunder until one father decided to take a look at just what was cracking up his daughter and all her friends.

From the Daily Mail:

Engineer Andrew Dodd, 37, whose daughter Laura is eight, said: 'I was furious. It was extremely inappropriate and irresponsible to give to children.

The books featured cartoon drawing and advice on how to have fun and live eco-consciously at the same time. What's so wrong with that?!

There's a section about saving water by 'bathing with a friend', reads: 'Save water. Have fun. Just get out before everything becomes wrinkled.''

Other inappropriate suggestions in the £5 book from Sainsbury's - whose advertising slogan is Try Something New Today - include encouraging readers to shave in intimate places, streaking, talking to strangers and handing out your phone number to five people on the street.

Oh.

So how did this happen? The cover looks like a children's book. And there were leftover copies at the store. Some do-gooder manager was just trying to give the kids a little token of appreciation.

Images: UK Daily Mail

Evangelical Teens' Very Active Sex Lives

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:00:00 GMT

In this week's issue of The New Yorker, there's a cartoon that made me laugh so hard I spit out my tea. Although it's not technically Bristol Palin's unborn child speaking, it easily could be. Two kids are sitting on a stoop and one says to the other, "I was an abstinence-only baby."

An article by Margarot Talbot in this same New Yorker tackles the issue of evangelical teen pregnancy in a more serious vein. Even for someone who is already convinced that abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work, these statistics are shocking.

Although 74 percent of white evangelical teenagers are opposed to premarital sex, more evangelical teens are sexually active than almost any other major religious group, including mainline Protestants, Jews, and Mormons. The average age for an evangelical to lose her virginity is 16. And half of these kids are not using protection. Compare that with 69 percent of non-evangelical teens who report using contraception every time they have sex.

The reason for this high percentage of unsafe sex among evangelical teens likely stems from shame at being sexually active—if you carry around condoms or suggest using one, you could give the impression that you are looking for sex. Furthermore, abstinence-only sex ed. teaches that condoms are not effective protection against STDs and pregnancy.

As we’ve seen in the widespread conservative support for Bristol Palin’s plans to get married and have a baby at age 17, for many evangelical parents, a teen daughter becoming pregnant is not a problem—so long as she keeps the baby and marries the father. This is a perfectly valid attitude based on a personal moral belief. The problem is that this retroactive problem solving often does not lead to happy families.

The states with the highest divorce rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates are all red (where people are, obviously, more likely to be evangelical conservatives than social liberals). The states with the lowest divorce and teen-pregnancy rates are all blue.

Many are arguing, even within the evangelical community, that if Christians want to preserve a commitment to abstinence until marriage, they must do more to encourage happier, younger marriages, since delaying sex until age 25 or 30 is just not realistic.

A large part of encouraging young Christians to have happier relationships is offering them more realistic attitudes toward sex. If hormonal teenagers are taught, for instance, that masturbation is sinful, they are more likely to have less engagement with and control over their bodies. Similarly, teen girls who are taught that they can always become "born-again virgins" if they "accidentally" have sex before marriage are not likely to embark on a responsible sex life. And such guilt-addled, unrealistic attitudes toward sex are likely to cause problems for couples well into marriage.

Photo: Mary Ellen Mark/The New Yorker

Could Sex on TV Lead to Teen Pregnancy?

My Daughter Wants A Penis

Cole Gamble — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Our kids bathe together. With my daughter at four-years-old and my son not quite two, the cute harmlessness of their tub adventures is directly proportionate to the amount of embarrassment they will feel when I show them the pictures when they’re teens.

Sometimes communal bath time casually transforms into anatomical exploration time. And in this time Jillian received the lion’s share of her education in the differences between boys and girls. Lately Dalton has taken to fiddling with his penis in the tub. Nudity in the tub is one of the only occasions he finds his wiener isn't incarcerated by a diaper, and so naturally dives for it every chance he gets. Jillian, observing all this groping, at first took a refreshingly egalitarian approach to male and female genitals, call all of them collectively “butts.” Over time she learned that neither were they butts, nor were they the same. She learned the word vagina and that’s when penises became “vaginas.” One time, on the road home from Thanksgiving with relatives, I took Jillian into a truck stop men’s room so she could pee. After she was done I took my turn. Watching me she said loudly, throughout a rest room filled with weary, surly truck drivers, “You got a big vagina daddy! My daddy’s got a big vagina!” Now we have the whole penis vagina thing straightened out, which is how Jillian came to inform me during her tub time recently, “Dalton is touching his penis.”

“Yes he is.”

“Is that okay?”

“Sure it is.”

“Can I touch my vagina?”

“If you like, but only you can.”

Then she paused to ponder this.

“I want a penis.”

I stopped shaving mid stroke.

“What?”

“If I saw a wishing star, I’d wish for a penis.”

“Why do you want a penis?”

“They’re cool.” I looked at Dalton, thoughtfully yanking away on his. He did look like he was having fun. As an owner of a penis, I have always been fairly pro-penis. But I didn’t want Jillian to develop an inferiority complex over her vagina.

“They are no cooler than a vagina.”

“Yes they are. You can pee when you’re standing up.” Again she had me. Peeing while standing is indeed rad. Quickly I tried to think of a major selling point that would convince her vaginas are great. Everything that came to mind, like having babies and the phenomenon of multiple orgasms, seemed far too lofty to explain to my 4-year-old. And then something just slipped out of my mouth:

“If you had a penis, you’d have to be a boy.”

“Ewwww,” she laughed, her face wrinkling up, “yuck!”

With one deft argument I had swept away any dreams of penile ownership from my daughter’s mind.

What do you guys and gals think? Have you had gender issues at home? Any genital envy amongst your kids?

More by this author:

Palin’s Daughter’s Redneck Baby Daddy: “I Don’t Want Kids!”

5 Reasons Breast Feeding Isn’t That Great (and 5 Reasons Why It Is)

The 9 Most Racist Disney Characters

The Sh*t List: 10 Bizarre (or Terrific?) Potty Gadgets

Nipple Jewelry: 5 Products Moms DON’T Need

10 Naughty Things We Do to Our Kids (but keep doing anyway)

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

Pole Dancing Kits and Other Modern Toys

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 21 May 2008 22:30:00 GMT

Padded bras for first graders, bikini waxes for eight-year-olds, pole dancing kits sold alongside Etch-a-sketches in the toy store—excuse me, but how did this happen? How is it affecting girls' self-image? And, um, what happened to feminism? These are a few of the questions tackled in a recent Salon interview with M. Gigi Durham, author of “The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About it.”

As her book title would suggest, Durham places the burden of sexualizing girls at increasingly young ages squarely on the media’s shoulders. She argues that many companies are looking to exploit tweens’ increasingly significant contribution to the commercial sector by selling them traditional messages about femininity that the older generation of women has by and large rejected.

Interestingly, Durham connects the commercial sexualization of young girls with women’s inability to enjoy their sexuality later on. The abstinence-only sex education programs that have become increasingly prevalent in the Bush years combined with media’s message that “You must look like Barbie to be sexy” creates a very confusing, potentially dangerous backdrop against which young women come to understand their sexuality. Even as teen girls are encouraged to ignore their own sexuality, they’re told, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it. And if you don’t have it, spend a lot of money until you get it.”

Durham’s advice to parents? Discuss, but don’t censure. For instance, instead of forbidding your daughter to read Seventeen magazine, ask her what she thinks of that model’s look or that article about how to make boys like you. And she says that this dialogue about media propaganda should start, in modified form of course, as soon as your kids can talk. Anyone out there tried this method?

Photo: Girlshop.com

Texas Sex Ed to Get Even Dumber

Amy Kuras — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:32:00 GMT

Oh sweet fancy Moses, tell it me it has not truly come to this. Texas schoolkids will devote a large portion of their health education classes next year to such topics as proving who their babydaddy is and how to get child support.

The target audience for this "Parenting and Paternity Awareness"" curriculum? 15-year olds.

This is the same Texas, mind you, that teaches abstinence and abstinence only in their sex ed classes. So let's just parse the message here: Don’t have sex. But if you do, and you get knocked up, which you will since we won’t tell you how not to, here's how to deal legally. Since if you're having sex you're too much of a whore to actually have a relationship with the father and will need to drag his ass into court to get what's coming to your kid.

I'll acknowledge this sort of information might be useful in many non-trainwreck type situations. But. Soooo much wrong with this. School authorities are willing on one hand to acknowledge high schoolers are having sex, may find themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy, and need to be armed with this information, but on the other refuse to admit that maybe sharing birth control information would keep kids from having to face this kind of situation in the first place.

I mean, I went to a Catholic school and while we were certainly taught abstinence, our sex ed class included information about all the aspects of sex: relationships, decision making, self-esteem, values and oh yes, BIRTH CONTROL. And it was never assumed that we'd find ourselves having to haul a babydaddy into court.

Teen-Led Sex Ed Gives Parents the Willies

Karen Murphy — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:31:00 GMT

Remember your first time? Everybody does. Mine happened in 9th grade, and it involved an older man. There was weeks of anticipation leading up to the event, and when it finally happened there was a bit of disappointment: is that all there is?

Sex ed. (What did you think I meant?) Mr. Bortz, normally the composed Bio teacher good at frog dissection, was red-faced for the entire three weeks and stammered through the curriculum, uttering words like "urethra" and "Fallopian tube". I would much rather have had what some New Jersey kids are getting, a peer-to-peer sex ed course. Too bad some parents feel otherwise.

The comprehensive course, called Teen PEP, is required material addressing topics of abstinence, safe sex, dating violence, HIV-AIDS, and how alcohol and drugs affect sexual decision-making. (Mr. Bortz could have talked about some of that, might have made a difference.) It's given to ninth-graders by faculty-supervised juniors and seniors. So what's the problem? I would much rather have been taught by another kid than an embarrassed teacher.

But some parents are pulling their kids out of the program, saying they don't want them being taught how to put condoms on bananas by other kids. But who else is going to teach you the important life skill of putting a condom onto a banana?

Photo: www.superweb.de

Talking To Kids About Sex--Make Teachers Do It

Kelly Mills — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:02:00 GMT

I've been all over the "abstinence-only sex ed" and "teen sex makes kids go blind" stories lately. Mostly because if you haven't guessed by now, 1) I believe many teenagers will have sex regardless of what adults say, 2) I do not believe this is the end of the world or cause for great hysteria, and 3) I'd like teenagers to have information that will keep their sexual experiences from, you know, resulting in pregnancy or STDs or trauma. Call me the crazy lady if you must, but that's my position. Anyhow, a while back I said one of the best ways to stave off early teen sex was to have parents talk to them about it, because who wants to do something you just heard your mom describe? But I forgot another argument in favor of sex ed--if schools teach kids about sex, then you are spared the embarassment of explaining "blow job" to your thirteen-year-old.

In case you weren't convinced, there's a highly entertaining video after the jump.

Talk To Your Kids About Sex - Watch more free videos Glad I wasn't the one who had to explain "Cleveland Steamer" to this kid after shooting wrapped.

States Turn Down Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funds In Favor of Teaching, You Know, Actual Sex Ed

Kelly Mills — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:33:00 GMT

Federal money for Cold Showers 101 may someday be a thing of the past. More and more states are declaring they will not apply for federal funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, and a couple others have applied but stated they will not stick with the abstinence-only curriculum, therefore rendering themselves ineligible. If you don't think this is a big deal, remember, these states are turning down MONEY--your tax dollars, in fact. That says something. Now why would states say they won't try and get the funds? "The jump in states opting out follows a series of reports questioning the effectiveness of the approach, including one commissioned by Congress that was released earlier this year. In addition, federal health officials reported last week that a 14-year drop in teenage pregnancy rates appeared to have reversed." Great.

Oh, but I absolutely loooove the response of supporters of "just say no" sex ed. Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services says "My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It's the youths in these states who are missing out." Youths who really, really need to sit in a classroom and be told all about the evils of sex without any information that could actually benefit them. Yeah, totally missing out. And Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association says the abstinence programs don't just waggle fingers and tsk tsk, but "They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception." Kids, this is a condom. It might help protect you from STDs, but since you won't be having sex, you don't need to know how it works. This, however, is what syphillis looks like, and you don't want that, do you?

I must confess this is one of those issues that gets me more irate than almost anything else, so I'm giddy that states are taking a stand. Now perhaps the money I send to the federal government could be used for education programs that aren't utter crap? Really, abstinence-only policy makers who ignore research and reality can kiss my ass without protection.

More Sex Ed -- Your Parents' Style

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:25:00 GMT

The post directly below got me thinking about all those horrible, real sex-ed videos we were forced to watch in school, and the ones our own kids will probably watch in years to come. They've got nothing on our parents' version of sex ed.

Girls

Boys

Avril Lavigne

Kids and Sex: A Kiss Is not a Contract

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:02:00 GMT

A boy kissed my girl the other day. We were at our favorite taco joint, and this sawed-off little Cary Grant comes up, grabs Emmeline from behind and goes to town. The boy's dad cheered and waved a sign that said "John 3:16" while I started flipping through the Yellow Pages for karate instructors who specialize in anti-handsy defense.

OK, fine, so I laughed a little, too. It was hilarious -- two toddlers making out for a split second. But it also got me thinking. These kids will start kissing soon -- for real. So I had better have a talk with her before she enters preschool.

Thankfully, I've discovered a new and highly trained duo of professional therapists who specialize in kids and sexuality. They teach parents how to talk effectively with children about issues like sex and how parents can help children just say no -- or at least not right now, because I've got a headache.

And the course is easy, too -- just plop your children down and make them watch this video.

Washington State May Prohibit Abstinence-Only Sex Ed

JasonAvant — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:09:00 GMT

News from the state of Washington: a bill that prohibits schools from implementing sex ed programs that teach only abstinence is making the rounds through the state legislature. Over at The Stranger, expectations are high that the bill will make it through the House; the state Senate poses a bigger challenge.

What's interesting about this bill is the wording. First, the bill does require schools to include abstinence discussions in sex ed curricula. Like I said in a previous post, not a bad idea. More important is this: per the bill, sex education courses must be medically and scientifically accurate. Seems that it goes without saying that what we teach our kids should be at least somewhat true, but when it comes to sex ed, that's not always the case. In fact, some of the "facts" that have been taught in abstinence-only courses sound suspiciously like sound bites from Rick Santorum's campaign speeches.

In my mind, such blatant fabrications as the ones in that Post article are more than the moronic ravings of an addled mind. Such tripe is a deliberate attempt to politicize sex education programs, pushing a right wing agenda onto kids (and in "Doctor" Frist's case, adults) who'll believe anything an authority figure tells them. The attempt in Washington to pass a bill that mandates fact-based sex ed is important; hopefully it'll become law.

Get Ready for a Baby Boom in Washington

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:45:00 GMT

Normally when I write about really messed up things going on in Washington I am referring to the District of Columbia, but this time I am talking about Washington State. In Washington State almost a third of the school districts won't allow the sex education teachers to talk about contraception. General sex ed is not required in Washington schools, but HIV/AIDS training is. A quote from this article says that "research has shown, the students are sexually active, but they don't use condoms because they think they don't work".

Holy shit. So these kids are going around having unprotected sex because they were given incomplete information? That makes me sick to my stomach. We don't have to like the fact that teenagers and preteens are having sex like crazy, but don't we at least owe it to them to give them all of the facts?

Even worse: "Teachers in 30 percent of the districts surveyed are not allowed to discuss condoms or contraception. Twenty-eight percent are banned from discussing abortion, and 23 percent are not allowed to talk about homosexuality." Is this really giving kids an education? I don't care what your personal beliefs are. I've used this analogy before, but I don't think people should own snakes as pets, but that doesn't mean I won't teach my children about their existence.