Sex is awesome. Just sayin...

 

When kids hit puberty THEY ARE GOING TO FUCK. It's the way it is, we're hardwired to procreate. Eat, sleep, fuck.


Denying kids that are sexualy active the acess to condoms due to squimishness and the *nah nah not listining not my kid hmmmm* reaction is just god damned ******ed.

Abstenice is a decent theory, but how many, out of the hundreds of people that you know or have met, were abstenint till marrage. Unless your livin in a colony, or utah, (sorry ninja) then probably not many, if any.

 

Not sure how I missed this before.

I see. So don't use condoms because they can break is your logic? Or don't ever have sex because it can sometimes have consequences? The "having sex with a condom is like playing with a gun" analogy is getting really tired and still doesn't work.

It sounds like you're simply saying "don't ever have sex unless you definitely are doing it to have children". Great. So you marry someone, then find out the sex is terrible, have a child with them, and regret it because one of the important aspects of the relationship wasn't what you thought it would be, and now you're stuck in a situation you could have easily avoided. But at least you were totally planning to have that child! Otherwise you could always have a very expensive surgery....

 

Not to mention the arguments disproving it have been largely ignored.

 

 

Especially if there are butts involved. 

 

It is right and wrong. Its wrong if there isnt any proof of kids this age running around your scjool district banging each other. However, if the opposite, parents should still have a vote on it and it should be discussed. In the inner city of philadelpia, this is right. In the beautiful suburbs of america, thiis probably is not necessary.

 

Chastity belts. Problem solved?

 

America already spends more money per student than any other country, yet test scores show the results don't match. The problem is obviously not a lack of funding. Other countries get better results with less money spent.

I'm no where near being rich, but I disagree with this on principle alone. I would love to discuss it, but we'd have to break the "no political discussion" rule to do so. I suggest leaving this kind of language out of future discussions. It could be considered baiting.

 

You know what else is considered baiting?

That post, along with every other "lol i wish i could discuss this but too bad rules exist i'm sure you can figure it our anyway wink wink" post you make in almost every thread in GD.

Reported.

 

Actually I was trying to point out that what he posted was technically a rules violations since it WAS political without actually "reporting" him. Way to repay the favor. I guess no good deed does go unpunished.

 

That's funny.

Actually, if we cut out the baiting that I mentioned earlier, we just get this:

Do you see what I did there? I cut out your trolling and the message still came through loud and clear.

Wasn't hard.

 

Yeah, the part you cut is the part where I was letting him know it was political. If I'd only posted what you edited there, it would look like I was just telling him what to do. The "I'd love to discuss it" was polite speak to let him know I don't object him posting it on a personal level, just a rules one.

Do I really need to explain every word in my post?

 

Yes, enlighten us.

 

I kind of hope you're being sarcastic, because the 'burbs are just as vulnerable to the problems and consequences of teen sex as the inner city. However, the difference between the two is that many suburban schools have better access to sex ed programs than their urban counterparts.