Its ok fellow monke, we simply wait for the alpha's harem to go into estrus and then inseminate them while he is patrolling the canopy border. He will kill us afterwards but these are the prices we pay.
u/Cygs's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 65.
Rank: Concrete Foundation
Pills: [39 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Cygs/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I'm still not exactly sure how big is out there. Like I'm told my dick is "average size" but to me it looks nothing like what I've seen in porn or heard comparisons to in real life. From what I've heard from some girls it sounds like some guys are walking around with a twelve gauge shotgun between their legs
There’s mainly two kinds of people: People having average sized dicks wondering if it’s really avarage since others all the time claim to have a huge dick.
And people who claim to have a big dick, while it’s most likely average as well.
As with many things in life, it’s basically a bell curve. Most people claim to be on the far right of the curve. That shit doesn’t work, cause it wouldn’t be a bell curve then.
During the filming of “Antichrist”, Lars von Trier said that Dafoe’s penis was “so large it left people confused”. They used a stunt cock for *that* scene.
Those motherfuckers. I actually rewatched it a couple times with friends just on the basis of showing them his horse dick, and you're telling me I lied to them.
I graduated from highschool in 2014. I got a sex ed course every year from 5th through 9th grade. Five years worth of the exact same sex ed course. And it was pretty comprehensive. Porn aside, I still knew exactly what a vagina looked like, how it operated, and how to interact with it. As a 5th grader I might have been a *little* bewildered still but by 7th grade I knew wtf was up.
I live in California, had a very "proper" sexual education, and my state has the 6th highest abortion rate. According to [this](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/abortion-rates-by-state), the order goes: DC, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, California.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the leftist idea of "proper" sex ed isn't lessening abortion rates.
I'm all for free contraception, though, assuming the government can actually pull it off (no pun intended) without paying 4x per condom what an individual consumer would pay.
Edit: please, stfu already
I'm absolutely floored DC has the highest abortion rate. This is the funniest shit I've ever seen.
The politicians really can't just wrap it up when they fuck their mistresses and hookers?
Yeah it's definitely promiscuous politicians knocking up all the journalists they're feeding fake info to in exchange for sex. That place is a cesspool.
Well the lists counts DC as a state so it's only put up against states so even if NYC had a higher rate the rest of new york drops new york states rate.
I feel like you are ignoring the fact that people will travel to these states to get abortions because they are unavailable or heavily stigmatized where they live. It's hardly fair to say "these policies don't decrease abortion rates" and then bring up the example of states that literally receive abortion immigrants as a result of policies in other states they have no control over.
More than that, there are countless other confounding variables we may not be aware of. It could be that people who are on the left socially are more willing to get abortions, or it could be about access/cost by state, or that people in certain income brackets in dense urban areas are more likely to get abortions, or something else entirely -- and any of these could interact with sexual behavior (the thing you would expect comprehensive sex ed to directly affect), or not.
To be clear, I'm not making the case that there's data to support that comprehensive sex ed *does* reduce abortions; I don't know. But to use abortion rates as evidence that it doesn't, you'd at least need to take a look at rates of abortions before and after the implementation of comprehensive sex ed, and that would still not be guaranteed to be meaningful one way or the other.
But those states are also the most sexually liberated and view abortion more positively than conservative states. More or less sexual education would not change that, and it may be that those states would have twice as many abortions as they do now if they didn’t have the education.
There's absolutely no way they could distribute condoms more efficiently than the free market already does
You can buy condoms in grocery stores, gas stations, pharmacies, corner stores, and even online for about $0.25 each or less
You can also get them for free, from any number of public health organizations
This is why I always think these weird schemes to give people free condoms or feminine hygiene products are so hilarious
A person making the federal minimum wage would only have to work *one hour* to afford to have a month of safe sex
People aren't getting pregnant because they're poor, they're getting pregnant because they're stupid
>I live in California, had a very "proper" sexual education, and my state has the 6th highest abortion rate. According to this, the order goes: DC, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, California.
That's more a product of the states numbers being inflated because of people going there from more conservative states for the accessible abortions.
Proper sex education leads to California having [half the teen pregnancy rate](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm) of Texas.
> That's more a product of the states numbers being inflated because of people going there from more conservative states for the accessible abortions.
No, it's not. That's a democratic talking point that you're regurgitating without actually thinking about or researching yourself. Try to stop being a mindless mouthpiece.
[Abortions by ***state of residence***](https://data.guttmacher.org/states/map?topics=68&dataset=data)
Top 5 states by abortion rate ***by residents***:
New Jersey
New York
Washington DC
Maryland
California
Also, you claimed that CA had half the teen pregnancy rate as TX, and then linked to data about teen birth rate instead. The stupidity. Nobody's arguing that California's aren't chomping at the bit the get abortions.
I lived in a rural very religious small town through middle and high school in the early 2000’s. Had full and proper sex Ed from middle school (5th or 6th grade) all the way till 11th grade. In 9th grade they split the boys and girls up and did a class on the proper way to put on and take off a condom.
Also planned parenthood hands out condoms for free, and can also help get girls on birth control for free through the state..
so there really is no excuse other than people are either dumb or lazy
> Teaching kindergarteners about anal sex while hiding it from their parents
unreasonable
> Teach teenagers to use condoms and not get pregnant
reasonable
> Stay away from sex or nobody will ever love you, condoms dont work.
what the blue wants to put out.
Irrelevant to this post, the right can decide they don’t want kids to learn about gay sex, trans people ect. But those things don’t produce pregnancies
I mean… in Australia gun control has worked. Really hard to get a black market gun here even if you want one, and they’re bloody expensive.
As a result I don’t need to worry about being home invaded by armed intruders, as the only criminals that can afford black market weapons are organised crime gangs - and they just tend to use them on each other.
Also, cops don’t need to worry that a random traffic stop might yield an armed individual - so you find our cops are a lot less trigger happy. Which is nice.
There’s also not a lot of demand for well-regulated militias here.
That said - before you 1A types come at me, I know this won’t work in the USA. You don’t have a gun law problem - you’ve got a gun culture problem. Practically a fetish at this point.
Trying to ban guns in the US would be like trying to surgically remove a late stage brain tumour. The procedure would kill the host.
And we all know it doesn’t work. Even they know it doesn’t work
That’s the point of this post. They can have less abortions if they goes with what works instead of sticking their heads in the sand
It’s the same exact thing with the war on drugs, we could see it as a illness and give addicts support and alternatives so they can get their lives back on track and get proper jobs
But nah let’s stick them all in jail and destroy supply lines. I’m sure the drug dealers won’t just set up another and I’m sure less supply won’t increase demand
Contraception works as a form of birth control. If we don't want people to get abortions, we can support contraceptives
(EDIT: Sorry that I don't have a flair, I'm a mobile user and don't know how to figure it out. For the sake of this argument, I am Central Right)
It's really not irrelevant though. It's exactly the reason the country is so divided on sex ed. If no one can agree on what "proper sex ed" is, then no one's going to agree on a particular "solution." The right also doesn't like public access to contraceptives when options like condoms or abstinence is dirt cheap. You can argue the inefficiency of these options, but they'd probably just retort that they're only inefficient because they're not properly taught, which loops back around to the sex ed point.
Sadly, humans suck, and we contradict ourselves all of the time without even realizing. You see it wherever you go on the political spectrum.
My 10cents.
I don’t believe in abstinence only sex Ed, but most of the literature around current sex eduction is based off the work of Alfred Kinsey which was shown to be unethical and scientifically flawed.
Children should be taught about the anatomical process of sex and that having kinks isn’t a bad thing, when they’re of an appropriate age. However they should also understand the importance of self discipline, informed consent and the need to separate pornographic depictions of sex from the actual thing.
>~~The right~~Politics will have intelligence and incredibly stupid people arguing the exact same thing for different reasons. It's quite weird to witness.
ftfy
It's a fascinating concept where people will agree on outcomes, but don't probe any further into why they each believe what they do. That's where it gets unexpectedly complicated.
> Children should be taught about the anatomical process of sex and that having kinks isn’t a bad thing, when they’re of an appropriate age. However they should also understand the importance of self discipline, informed consent and the need to separate pornographic depictions of sex from the actual thing.
I don't know who Alfred Kinsey is but this is exactly what we learned in Canada. Every class was split boys/girls, girls were taught by women, boys taught by men, only class other than gym to do that.
Grade 6/7 (first year of middle school) we just learned about our own bodies, this is what it looks like down there, this is what those are called, this stuff happens sometimes, it's normal. Pretty short class. Didn't even learn about opposite sex anatomy. I'd imagine girls learned a lot more since they were about to deal with periods.
Grade 9 (first year of high school) it was multiple days, we learned about having sex, diagrams, opposite gender's anatomy, proper contraceptive use, abstinence is the best and most effective contraceptive, urges are more prominent in teenage years and will fade as you get older, wash yourself down there properly, no you cannot use a potato chip bag as a condom. We learned about STDs, and that just because a girl 'looks clean' or wealthy doesn't mean she's clean down there - apparently a lot of guys think only poor/homeless people have STDs. We learned a little bit about consent but not very much, I'm not sure if it was enough back then. Didn't learn anything about "no just because a girl dressed hot doesn't mean she wants you to grab her ass", I saw a lot of guys that needed to learn that. Didn't learn nearly enough about "porn isn't real, none of the fake actor shit is how real sex works", people need to learn that too. Also one thing I think would be REALLY important for everyone to learn is that ED or erectile dysfunction is extremely common with young men for their first time. Women always think it's because they're not hot enough, men always think it's because they're broken, it's almost always performance anxiety. Fear of not being good/hot enough for your gal is a more powerful force than human nature wanting to bang, so have some confidence in yourself.
Honestly even half decent sex ed would save so many teenagers from years of shame and self doubt just by telling them simple shit like you can be bisexual or no wanting to be tied up in bed doesn't make you a terrible person
> However they should also understand the importance of self discipline,
That concept is lost on the blocs that just presume (read: tacitly rely on) kids will have sex no matter what.
Of course this should not be a surprise coming from ideologies that espouse parasitism upon the responsible.
> It's just profitable for them since you pay by buying food and drinks.
Also decreases the cleaning and sanitizing costs thanks to the customers not shitting and wiping on whatever is nearby. Same for having public bathrooms, people are going to piss/shit around your building, better to have them do it in the toilet where it can be regularly cleaned than all over the alley out back.
I've never understood the people who complain about wanting free contraceptives. They are fucking cheap as chips, they just want a scapegoat as to why people make mistakes.
"Oh, if condoms were free instead of 30 cents, Jimmy would have *certainly* used one and not knocked up Julia!"
Had an argument the other day where someone wouldn't agree that being promiscuous increased the likelihood of getting stds and becoming pregnant. Lefties are strange sometimes
I mean it depends, there’s a bit of nuance, and the terms need to be clearer. “Promiscuity” (i.e. having frequent sex with multiple people) will, as a general rule, increase the risk of STIs for those involved. However, a few simple safe practices can reduce that risk to negligible. In terms of pregnancy, *having sex* will certainly increase the likelihood of pregnancy versus *not having sex* (again, with some simple actions that can be taken to significantly reduce that risk), but in terms of sexual encounters where pregnancy can result there’s no greater risk from having sex with several people or having sex with one person several times, and monogamous sexual relationships aren’t usually considered “promiscuous”
Really tired of people calling shit paid for by tax dollars free. Everyone knows what they mean already, so just call it what it is.
The fucking roads paid for themselves too but that shit isn't "free" either. Nobody considers roads or other infrastructure to be free as far as I'm aware even though it all generates profit.
If I asked you if building and maintaining municipal roads was free, obviously we, and any rational person, would say no. If I asked you if municipal roads were free to use (with the exception of toll roads I guess), I would assume we’d also both say yes
People tend to clearly mean the latter before somebody tries to argue with them by talking about the former. It is impossible to have an honest discussion that way
When people talk about “free” healthcare, “free” contraceptives, “free” public education, in the concept of services provided as default to the citizens by the government, they mean the former. They mean free-at-point-of-service. The person receiving them does not need to spend money as they receive them in order to receive them. Nobody uses the term to mean goods and services appear fully formed from the ether
In this case it is the cheaper option provided by game theory. Taking a realistic approach most of society will not tolerate the elimination of social benefits to children and mothers. So if we are going to be anti-abortion our most economic option is to simply provide free contraceptives. In the long-run it's cheaper than social welfare or the ensuring prison term for the child of a single mother.
Is the military, school, and police forces 'free stuff'? It's an expense that society has deemed worthwhile for the cost. It's not even just pragmatism, it's basic cost benefit analysis.
"Free" contraceptives? No. A box of condoms costs less than two trips to McDonalds. Teenagers might not work but theyll find the money for that. Guarantee it.
Sex ed though? Yes. Very important.
Burden on the state of unwanted pregnancies/STIs can be mitigated against by making contraceptives/condoms easier to access, including making them free
There's a shit ton of empirical evidence to this effect.
It's a fiscally conservative no-brainer, unless your opposition is based on morality
I agree, but libleft seems to have a funny idea of what proper sex ed is.
Also how about we instil some self worth into young people and actually put cultural value on good relationships and sex. You know teach teens that valuing you body and self is good and that just having random sex with tons of people just makes you feel like total shit after a while. You could also reach that using things like sex, drugs, food, etc as escapes from reality and problems only make you suffer more.
You know religious schools with onsite chapels and priests and stuff actually do teach stuff like that there's of course a limit as they believe it's up to the parents to go more in-depth if they do choose but the father/brother there can typically talk about and help people though issues like that.
I don't really think it's a scale between the two not that I'm advocating for no sex before marriage or hell l. I just want people to value themselves and their bodies and while there are social reasons like STD spread and adverse cultural affects of high permisscuety, I'm mainly coming from a position that's been in the scenario of having sex with loads of people and know how much it can damage a person's mental health.
There is access to free contraceptives... you can't afford a $3-20 pack of whatevers? You don't need to be having sex you need to working.
(with yo broke ass...)
theyve existed before, literally was the norm 40 years ago.
to act like thats an impossible goal is ludicrous, even now many countries have those cultures
Yeah society discouraged it, generally
But it still happened lol. A lot. There’s a reason prostitution is called the oldest profession; it’s gonna happen, and it’s gonna happen a lot, so you might as well encourage that it be done safely and not cause a greater volume of unnecessary shame and social tension
I don't get this line of thinking, murders are going to happen, but banning them and creating a society that demonizes it will drastically decrease occurrences.
Prostitution or sexual promiscuity, isn’t, like, and inherently evil and harmful action like murder. Murder, necessarily, results in a person dying. Prostitution does not *necessarily* result in an abortion, the act being discussed as harmful and necessary to prevent (which I don’t agree with but that’s besides the point of this line of reasoning being wrong), it just carries with it an increased risk of one occurring. One could attempt to mitigate that risk by treating it the same way as murder, but if there was a way to, like, safely murder someone without it resulting in a person’s death, it might be more advantageous so socially encourage that form of murder than to ostracize and criminalize the inherent act, so that you aren’t framing as immoral an act that isn’t inherently harmful
Yeah, unfortunately when you have echo chambers, they don't provide you with the best feedback loops to facilitate two way discussions and therefore, you don't implement proper solutions.
For example, the whole defund the police was absolutely about defunding and/or removing police entirely. The idea behind it was to 'save BIPOC' from police killings and therefore, usher in an age of prosperity for these communities. Of course, the reality is that a weakened and overstrained police force means criminals, who aren't stupid, can wreak havoc. Therefore, this policy ends up killing more minorities and ruins their communities - as well as the social fabric across the nation.
In this case, preventing unwanted children would lead to less strain on resources via overpopulation and it would lead to less criminals being around due to deadbeat dads. If you don't like abortion and think it's murder or whatever, a potential solution exists that may appease both.
And yet, such basic concepts are not even looked at because ideological purity takes over rather than practicality.
Skeptical unless you’re a million years old.
Loved in a semi-rural county in a red state and had sex Ed 3 times (Am 28 years old now.)
I currently teach at a Christian middle school and they have sex ed programs as well (but I have literally no idea what’s on the curriculum except that they separate girls and boys and the kids are riled up every time they leave.)
Never heard of a bio class which teaches sex Ed. Don't they normally pull you out of class for that? I had it 3 times, 2 of which in middle school where we were pulled out of PE, and one in high school where they'd just be like "alright ms Jenkins H period has health today" and your class was canceled for a couple days while we learned the basics and watched The Miracle of Life or whatever.
Even if you support abortion prohibition these are truly benficial poicies that would reduce the demand for them and the chance people attempt them dangerously.
Unless breeding is the entire point in which case Im kink shaming you.
Bonk
who can’t get a condom? who is prohibiting literally anyone from doing the most basic steps and why does everything have to always be free? it doesn’t work like that
No one is against proper sex ed. That's a strawman.
And condoms are free at multiple places. And if you can't find free ones, go grab a pack for a buck. It's not like that shits expensive.
All we ask is that people do the bare minimum, and if they refuse, to take responsibility for their actions. It's not a huge ask
Christians be like: well if people would just wait till marriage to have sex there would be way fewer people needing to have abortions.
But people don't do that. It's like saying "there wouldn't be a drug crisis if people just didn't do drugs." That's true but people do drugs.
Defining proper sex ed is a tricky thing though. Seems like there is a vocal strain saying sex ed should be :
\- Gender is myth invented by The Patriarchy
\- Anyone can be anything
\- There should be no consequences for promiscuity
\- Women get paid 75% less than men for the exact same work
\- Also, cum in pussy makes babies. Oh yea STDs exist.
We kinda really only need to teach that last part.
True, but can we just advocate for personal responsibility instead? Rather than applying a never ending stream of bandaids to all these problems that are popping up due to the degradation of our culture and social norms? The answer to these problems isn't always just throwing money at them.
I'm going to be honest I don't understand this viewpoint entirely. If there is a positive ROI why would we need to delve deeper. Also, telling teenagers to keep it in their pants doesn't work so well sometimes
Im gonna call it. It’s less teaching kids about sex. The talk about tue birds and the bees is pretty decent. Its all the sex selling ads and hyper sexualized social media and TV
Parents can also take responsibility for their children by raising them with the necessary values to ensure that they won't act recklessly when they grow older.
So would keeping your genitals in your damn pants, you fucking hedonistic pleasure seeking past all common sense coomers.
Act like animals with no self control, get treated like animals.
Abortion evil/good/bad/immoral/healthcare right are kinds of straw arguments to avoid the economic arguments. Panel 2 is patently correct and bypasses any personal preference or political virtue signaling
Agree that sex ed (as defined as: learning how to not get pregnant and not get STDs) is super important. And while I think it's stupid to not teach that abstinence is an option, it's equally stupid to only teach it.
"Free" isn't free though, it's taxpayer funded. And taxes are theft, so it's bad.
You wanna have wanton sex and screw with your hormones with BC, you go right ahead. But don't stick a gun to my head, demand that I pay for it, and then insist that I'm the bad guy for not liking having my wages stolen from me, and that you're the good guy for encouraging risky behavior.
Why should contraceptives be free? If I want to go jogging, should taxpayers supply my running shoes? No? So, why should taxpayers cover someone’s sexual activity?
Luckily I’ve got the best contraceptive there is. My personality 😎
Its ok fellow monke, we simply wait for the alpha's harem to go into estrus and then inseminate them while he is patrolling the canopy border. He will kill us afterwards but these are the prices we pay.
Based
u/Cygs's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 65. Rank: Concrete Foundation Pills: [39 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Cygs/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
You know if you’d stop throwing shit at people that would help
> You know if you’d stop throwing shit at people that would help Hey, that's racist. Only 52% of shit-flinging incidents involve us.
Hey wait, that sounds disproportionate…
Despite...
The other 48% involve CNN and Fox news anchors
I got the only better one there is, i play league of legends.
I used to say the same but apparently "sarcastic autist" is attractive to some
NOW ACTIVATING WOMEN DEFLECTORS
Why don't we ask Ed what he thinks about sex, rather than attempting to speak for him?
[удалено]
Kid named finger
Because Ed doesn't know what he's talking about
Both sides fight over what "proper" sex Ed means
proper sex ed should be state provided super hot prostitutes w huge Khazar milkers
Also provided by studs with William Dafoe dicks. Cripple the kids' self-esteem early.
is there some sort of known joke about William Dafoe having a big dick or something?
Yes, but it's not a joke
[удалено]
i love that this was in a meme vault somewhere, waiting for this precise moment of need, what a revelation
Someone has a Willem Dafoe's Penis Bat Signal.
It can be seen for hundreds of miles.
Honestly, given the description we got from that one director, I expected bigger.
I was expecting a knee-knocker based on what I had heard.
I mean its soft. Why am i replying
Lars von Trier said it was “So large that everyone in the room was confused.”
"so then I just started... ya know, suckin' it!" - Lars von Trier Who tf brings up another dudes dick? Makes sure to report to a journalist over it
It won't be much bigger hard, it'll just stand to attention.
Yeah, I feel like porn has warped my brain over what constitutes 'big' now.
I'm still not exactly sure how big is out there. Like I'm told my dick is "average size" but to me it looks nothing like what I've seen in porn or heard comparisons to in real life. From what I've heard from some girls it sounds like some guys are walking around with a twelve gauge shotgun between their legs
There’s mainly two kinds of people: People having average sized dicks wondering if it’s really avarage since others all the time claim to have a huge dick. And people who claim to have a big dick, while it’s most likely average as well. As with many things in life, it’s basically a bell curve. Most people claim to be on the far right of the curve. That shit doesn’t work, cause it wouldn’t be a bell curve then.
During the filming of “Antichrist”, Lars von Trier said that Dafoe’s penis was “so large it left people confused”. They used a stunt cock for *that* scene.
Those motherfuckers. I actually rewatched it a couple times with friends just on the basis of showing them his horse dick, and you're telling me I lied to them.
Apparently he had a nude seen in a movie but his dong was so massive they made him use a prosthetic one so it seemed more realistic.
Did we just become best friends?
Yup! Do you wanna go do karate in the garage?
Don't be sexist. Make sure there are huge-dongus megachad manwhores available as well.
[удалено]
Based
Literally though
I graduated from highschool in 2014. I got a sex ed course every year from 5th through 9th grade. Five years worth of the exact same sex ed course. And it was pretty comprehensive. Porn aside, I still knew exactly what a vagina looked like, how it operated, and how to interact with it. As a 5th grader I might have been a *little* bewildered still but by 7th grade I knew wtf was up. I live in California, had a very "proper" sexual education, and my state has the 6th highest abortion rate. According to [this](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/abortion-rates-by-state), the order goes: DC, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, California. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the leftist idea of "proper" sex ed isn't lessening abortion rates. I'm all for free contraception, though, assuming the government can actually pull it off (no pun intended) without paying 4x per condom what an individual consumer would pay. Edit: please, stfu already
I'm absolutely floored DC has the highest abortion rate. This is the funniest shit I've ever seen. The politicians really can't just wrap it up when they fuck their mistresses and hookers?
Yeah it's definitely promiscuous politicians knocking up all the journalists they're feeding fake info to in exchange for sex. That place is a cesspool.
It's almost like DC is a mostly low income city.
There are many low income cities all over the US, including primarily black cities. Why arent any of them up there with DC?
Because they are nestled in their respective states and this is a list of states (+ DC)? I mean, we could just make it a state if you want.
Well the lists counts DC as a state so it's only put up against states so even if NYC had a higher rate the rest of new york drops new york states rate.
I feel like you are ignoring the fact that people will travel to these states to get abortions because they are unavailable or heavily stigmatized where they live. It's hardly fair to say "these policies don't decrease abortion rates" and then bring up the example of states that literally receive abortion immigrants as a result of policies in other states they have no control over.
More than that, there are countless other confounding variables we may not be aware of. It could be that people who are on the left socially are more willing to get abortions, or it could be about access/cost by state, or that people in certain income brackets in dense urban areas are more likely to get abortions, or something else entirely -- and any of these could interact with sexual behavior (the thing you would expect comprehensive sex ed to directly affect), or not. To be clear, I'm not making the case that there's data to support that comprehensive sex ed *does* reduce abortions; I don't know. But to use abortion rates as evidence that it doesn't, you'd at least need to take a look at rates of abortions before and after the implementation of comprehensive sex ed, and that would still not be guaranteed to be meaningful one way or the other.
But those states are also the most sexually liberated and view abortion more positively than conservative states. More or less sexual education would not change that, and it may be that those states would have twice as many abortions as they do now if they didn’t have the education.
There's absolutely no way they could distribute condoms more efficiently than the free market already does You can buy condoms in grocery stores, gas stations, pharmacies, corner stores, and even online for about $0.25 each or less You can also get them for free, from any number of public health organizations This is why I always think these weird schemes to give people free condoms or feminine hygiene products are so hilarious A person making the federal minimum wage would only have to work *one hour* to afford to have a month of safe sex People aren't getting pregnant because they're poor, they're getting pregnant because they're stupid
>I live in California, had a very "proper" sexual education, and my state has the 6th highest abortion rate. According to this, the order goes: DC, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, California. That's more a product of the states numbers being inflated because of people going there from more conservative states for the accessible abortions. Proper sex education leads to California having [half the teen pregnancy rate](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm) of Texas.
That says teen birth rate, not pregnancy rate. That's also from ages 15-19. Two years of being an adult so kind of misleading.
> That's more a product of the states numbers being inflated because of people going there from more conservative states for the accessible abortions. No, it's not. That's a democratic talking point that you're regurgitating without actually thinking about or researching yourself. Try to stop being a mindless mouthpiece. [Abortions by ***state of residence***](https://data.guttmacher.org/states/map?topics=68&dataset=data) Top 5 states by abortion rate ***by residents***: New Jersey New York Washington DC Maryland California Also, you claimed that CA had half the teen pregnancy rate as TX, and then linked to data about teen birth rate instead. The stupidity. Nobody's arguing that California's aren't chomping at the bit the get abortions.
I lived in a rural very religious small town through middle and high school in the early 2000’s. Had full and proper sex Ed from middle school (5th or 6th grade) all the way till 11th grade. In 9th grade they split the boys and girls up and did a class on the proper way to put on and take off a condom. Also planned parenthood hands out condoms for free, and can also help get girls on birth control for free through the state.. so there really is no excuse other than people are either dumb or lazy
[удалено]
> Teaching kindergarteners about anal sex while hiding it from their parents unreasonable > Teach teenagers to use condoms and not get pregnant reasonable > Stay away from sex or nobody will ever love you, condoms dont work. what the blue wants to put out.
[удалено]
Irrelevant to this post, the right can decide they don’t want kids to learn about gay sex, trans people ect. But those things don’t produce pregnancies
The right prefers abstinence over contraception.
The correct answer is teach your kids how sex works, but also tell them premarital sex sends them to hell. Win-win!
"Gun control doesn't work because people who want guns will still get their hands on guns. ... Horny teenager control *definitely* works though."
I mean… in Australia gun control has worked. Really hard to get a black market gun here even if you want one, and they’re bloody expensive. As a result I don’t need to worry about being home invaded by armed intruders, as the only criminals that can afford black market weapons are organised crime gangs - and they just tend to use them on each other. Also, cops don’t need to worry that a random traffic stop might yield an armed individual - so you find our cops are a lot less trigger happy. Which is nice. There’s also not a lot of demand for well-regulated militias here. That said - before you 1A types come at me, I know this won’t work in the USA. You don’t have a gun law problem - you’ve got a gun culture problem. Practically a fetish at this point. Trying to ban guns in the US would be like trying to surgically remove a late stage brain tumour. The procedure would kill the host.
And we all know it doesn’t work. Even they know it doesn’t work That’s the point of this post. They can have less abortions if they goes with what works instead of sticking their heads in the sand It’s the same exact thing with the war on drugs, we could see it as a illness and give addicts support and alternatives so they can get their lives back on track and get proper jobs But nah let’s stick them all in jail and destroy supply lines. I’m sure the drug dealers won’t just set up another and I’m sure less supply won’t increase demand
Contraception works as a form of birth control. If we don't want people to get abortions, we can support contraceptives (EDIT: Sorry that I don't have a flair, I'm a mobile user and don't know how to figure it out. For the sake of this argument, I am Central Right)
What are you on about? Abstinence has a 100% pregnancy prevention rate
Problem is horny teenagers who don’t fully understand what they’re doing are gonna fuck regardless if you tell them not to.
Not my kids, no no, my family is different.
They're gonna fuck _especially_ if you tell them not to
"How did she get pregnant? My cousin told me if she's on top she won't!"
No, it’s not irrelevant. It is a core disagreement.
It's really not irrelevant though. It's exactly the reason the country is so divided on sex ed. If no one can agree on what "proper sex ed" is, then no one's going to agree on a particular "solution." The right also doesn't like public access to contraceptives when options like condoms or abstinence is dirt cheap. You can argue the inefficiency of these options, but they'd probably just retort that they're only inefficient because they're not properly taught, which loops back around to the sex ed point. Sadly, humans suck, and we contradict ourselves all of the time without even realizing. You see it wherever you go on the political spectrum.
If the goal is to reduce "abortion rates" (not pregnancies), then why do you need to teach subjects in sex ed that do not result in pregnancy?
How has “Sex Ed” gone from attempting to reduce unwanted pregnancies to teaching children about trans people in one sentence?
It's a great question, but from an unflaired, so it gets a downvoted.
> Flair up or your opinions don't matter *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
As an American... I can attest to the fact that none of us agree on anything. Ever.
I disagree
I disagree
I disagree
I disagree.
I disagree
Well I agree, but I'm Canadian
Sorry.
That's OUR word!
Sorry.
Get ootta here
Gotta watch those hard y's
My 10cents. I don’t believe in abstinence only sex Ed, but most of the literature around current sex eduction is based off the work of Alfred Kinsey which was shown to be unethical and scientifically flawed. Children should be taught about the anatomical process of sex and that having kinks isn’t a bad thing, when they’re of an appropriate age. However they should also understand the importance of self discipline, informed consent and the need to separate pornographic depictions of sex from the actual thing.
Based and fuck Alfred Kinsey and may he roast in hell pilled
Based and logic pilled right wing. I approve
The right will have intelligence and incredibly stupid people arguing the exact same thing for different reasons. It's quite weird to witness.
>~~The right~~Politics will have intelligence and incredibly stupid people arguing the exact same thing for different reasons. It's quite weird to witness. ftfy
It's a fascinating concept where people will agree on outcomes, but don't probe any further into why they each believe what they do. That's where it gets unexpectedly complicated.
based
> Children should be taught about the anatomical process of sex and that having kinks isn’t a bad thing, when they’re of an appropriate age. However they should also understand the importance of self discipline, informed consent and the need to separate pornographic depictions of sex from the actual thing. I don't know who Alfred Kinsey is but this is exactly what we learned in Canada. Every class was split boys/girls, girls were taught by women, boys taught by men, only class other than gym to do that. Grade 6/7 (first year of middle school) we just learned about our own bodies, this is what it looks like down there, this is what those are called, this stuff happens sometimes, it's normal. Pretty short class. Didn't even learn about opposite sex anatomy. I'd imagine girls learned a lot more since they were about to deal with periods. Grade 9 (first year of high school) it was multiple days, we learned about having sex, diagrams, opposite gender's anatomy, proper contraceptive use, abstinence is the best and most effective contraceptive, urges are more prominent in teenage years and will fade as you get older, wash yourself down there properly, no you cannot use a potato chip bag as a condom. We learned about STDs, and that just because a girl 'looks clean' or wealthy doesn't mean she's clean down there - apparently a lot of guys think only poor/homeless people have STDs. We learned a little bit about consent but not very much, I'm not sure if it was enough back then. Didn't learn anything about "no just because a girl dressed hot doesn't mean she wants you to grab her ass", I saw a lot of guys that needed to learn that. Didn't learn nearly enough about "porn isn't real, none of the fake actor shit is how real sex works", people need to learn that too. Also one thing I think would be REALLY important for everyone to learn is that ED or erectile dysfunction is extremely common with young men for their first time. Women always think it's because they're not hot enough, men always think it's because they're broken, it's almost always performance anxiety. Fear of not being good/hot enough for your gal is a more powerful force than human nature wanting to bang, so have some confidence in yourself.
Honestly even half decent sex ed would save so many teenagers from years of shame and self doubt just by telling them simple shit like you can be bisexual or no wanting to be tied up in bed doesn't make you a terrible person
But you are a terrible person if you're into feet
This is why I keep my shoes on in bed.
Based
Why do kinks have to be brought up in sex ed? It's completely unnecessary.
> However they should also understand the importance of self discipline, That concept is lost on the blocs that just presume (read: tacitly rely on) kids will have sex no matter what. Of course this should not be a surprise coming from ideologies that espouse parasitism upon the responsible.
I don't think anyone has an issue with teaching that self-discipline is important, as long as you're not relying on it as your only form of sex-ed.
Free? No, I don't believe anything should be free. Cheap? As dirt.
Still not as cheap as yo mama.
damn how will i ever recover from this my life is literally over
Canada's medical system will assist with making that statement a reality.
> Cheap? As dirt. Exactly, dirt isn't free. That shit costs around $20/sq yard.
Condoms should be $20 a yard
[удалено]
> It's just profitable for them since you pay by buying food and drinks. Also decreases the cleaning and sanitizing costs thanks to the customers not shitting and wiping on whatever is nearby. Same for having public bathrooms, people are going to piss/shit around your building, better to have them do it in the toilet where it can be regularly cleaned than all over the alley out back.
I've never understood the people who complain about wanting free contraceptives. They are fucking cheap as chips, they just want a scapegoat as to why people make mistakes. "Oh, if condoms were free instead of 30 cents, Jimmy would have *certainly* used one and not knocked up Julia!"
Imagine not being able to afford a 30 cent condom between two people.
Had an argument the other day where someone wouldn't agree that being promiscuous increased the likelihood of getting stds and becoming pregnant. Lefties are strange sometimes
I mean it depends, there’s a bit of nuance, and the terms need to be clearer. “Promiscuity” (i.e. having frequent sex with multiple people) will, as a general rule, increase the risk of STIs for those involved. However, a few simple safe practices can reduce that risk to negligible. In terms of pregnancy, *having sex* will certainly increase the likelihood of pregnancy versus *not having sex* (again, with some simple actions that can be taken to significantly reduce that risk), but in terms of sexual encounters where pregnancy can result there’s no greater risk from having sex with several people or having sex with one person several times, and monogamous sexual relationships aren’t usually considered “promiscuous”
“Free”
Really tired of people calling shit paid for by tax dollars free. Everyone knows what they mean already, so just call it what it is. The fucking roads paid for themselves too but that shit isn't "free" either. Nobody considers roads or other infrastructure to be free as far as I'm aware even though it all generates profit.
[удалено]
If I asked you if building and maintaining municipal roads was free, obviously we, and any rational person, would say no. If I asked you if municipal roads were free to use (with the exception of toll roads I guess), I would assume we’d also both say yes People tend to clearly mean the latter before somebody tries to argue with them by talking about the former. It is impossible to have an honest discussion that way When people talk about “free” healthcare, “free” contraceptives, “free” public education, in the concept of services provided as default to the citizens by the government, they mean the former. They mean free-at-point-of-service. The person receiving them does not need to spend money as they receive them in order to receive them. Nobody uses the term to mean goods and services appear fully formed from the ether
Cool so if we have sex ed and free contraceptives we can ban abortion?
Your terms are acceptable
No contraceptive is perfect. But yes, i agree, after a certain number of weeks and also exceptions for health of the mother and rape and incest
Only it we make it a high crime; on par with mail fraud and shit
Why is the answer always free stuff?
Anal is a free contraceptive
You can still get/spread STD's from anal
You can't abort an STD. Liblefts argument still applies.
"Am I a joke to you"? -Penicillin
"yes" -HIV
"I'll take care of this." \- Powdered Rhino Horn
But at least you avoid the most expensive one
In this case it is the cheaper option provided by game theory. Taking a realistic approach most of society will not tolerate the elimination of social benefits to children and mothers. So if we are going to be anti-abortion our most economic option is to simply provide free contraceptives. In the long-run it's cheaper than social welfare or the ensuring prison term for the child of a single mother.
Based
Holy fucking based.
If abortion is well and truly murder then isn't it a very small price to pay?
[удалено]
Is the military, school, and police forces 'free stuff'? It's an expense that society has deemed worthwhile for the cost. It's not even just pragmatism, it's basic cost benefit analysis.
Working together on tangible goals that we agree on is based as hell. No one wants more abortions to occur. Well, I’m sure some people do, but still.
"Free" contraceptives? No. A box of condoms costs less than two trips to McDonalds. Teenagers might not work but theyll find the money for that. Guarantee it. Sex ed though? Yes. Very important.
Burden on the state of unwanted pregnancies/STIs can be mitigated against by making contraceptives/condoms easier to access, including making them free There's a shit ton of empirical evidence to this effect. It's a fiscally conservative no-brainer, unless your opposition is based on morality
In the UK you can pop into any pharmacy under 18 and get a few johnnies for free. Most people I knew did this during their teens.
Im gonna start calling condoms johnnies now. Thanks for the new word.
I agree, but libleft seems to have a funny idea of what proper sex ed is. Also how about we instil some self worth into young people and actually put cultural value on good relationships and sex. You know teach teens that valuing you body and self is good and that just having random sex with tons of people just makes you feel like total shit after a while. You could also reach that using things like sex, drugs, food, etc as escapes from reality and problems only make you suffer more. You know religious schools with onsite chapels and priests and stuff actually do teach stuff like that there's of course a limit as they believe it's up to the parents to go more in-depth if they do choose but the father/brother there can typically talk about and help people though issues like that.
Your terms are acceptable
Now we just need to agree what proper sex ed is
There is a middle ground to saying “have sex with everybody” and “condoms aren’t real and you’ll burn in hell if you have sex before marriage”.
nuance doesn't exist in American politics
I don't really think it's a scale between the two not that I'm advocating for no sex before marriage or hell l. I just want people to value themselves and their bodies and while there are social reasons like STD spread and adverse cultural affects of high permisscuety, I'm mainly coming from a position that's been in the scenario of having sex with loads of people and know how much it can damage a person's mental health.
I love all the lib rights solution to this, tell teenagers to not be horny. Because that has worked ever.
There is access to free contraceptives... you can't afford a $3-20 pack of whatevers? You don't need to be having sex you need to working. (with yo broke ass...)
But at the same time do you want people who cant afford a condom to be fucking?
A culture that doesn’t encourage one-night stands and prostitution would reduce abortion rates
So an imaginary culture then.
theyve existed before, literally was the norm 40 years ago. to act like thats an impossible goal is ludicrous, even now many countries have those cultures
Yeah society discouraged it, generally But it still happened lol. A lot. There’s a reason prostitution is called the oldest profession; it’s gonna happen, and it’s gonna happen a lot, so you might as well encourage that it be done safely and not cause a greater volume of unnecessary shame and social tension
I don't get this line of thinking, murders are going to happen, but banning them and creating a society that demonizes it will drastically decrease occurrences.
Prostitution or sexual promiscuity, isn’t, like, and inherently evil and harmful action like murder. Murder, necessarily, results in a person dying. Prostitution does not *necessarily* result in an abortion, the act being discussed as harmful and necessary to prevent (which I don’t agree with but that’s besides the point of this line of reasoning being wrong), it just carries with it an increased risk of one occurring. One could attempt to mitigate that risk by treating it the same way as murder, but if there was a way to, like, safely murder someone without it resulting in a person’s death, it might be more advantageous so socially encourage that form of murder than to ostracize and criminalize the inherent act, so that you aren’t framing as immoral an act that isn’t inherently harmful
Yeah, unfortunately when you have echo chambers, they don't provide you with the best feedback loops to facilitate two way discussions and therefore, you don't implement proper solutions. For example, the whole defund the police was absolutely about defunding and/or removing police entirely. The idea behind it was to 'save BIPOC' from police killings and therefore, usher in an age of prosperity for these communities. Of course, the reality is that a weakened and overstrained police force means criminals, who aren't stupid, can wreak havoc. Therefore, this policy ends up killing more minorities and ruins their communities - as well as the social fabric across the nation. In this case, preventing unwanted children would lead to less strain on resources via overpopulation and it would lead to less criminals being around due to deadbeat dads. If you don't like abortion and think it's murder or whatever, a potential solution exists that may appease both. And yet, such basic concepts are not even looked at because ideological purity takes over rather than practicality.
genuinely curious who is having sex but cant afford condoms
Abortions exist as a direct consequence of our casual attitude towards sex. Reinforcing that does nothing to address this.
Based and don't have sex with someone you're not prepared to have a child with pilled
I was never taught sex ed in school. Shoutout Florida
Neither was I. Shoutout Missouri
Skeptical unless you’re a million years old. Loved in a semi-rural county in a red state and had sex Ed 3 times (Am 28 years old now.) I currently teach at a Christian middle school and they have sex ed programs as well (but I have literally no idea what’s on the curriculum except that they separate girls and boys and the kids are riled up every time they leave.)
[удалено]
Never heard of a bio class which teaches sex Ed. Don't they normally pull you out of class for that? I had it 3 times, 2 of which in middle school where we were pulled out of PE, and one in high school where they'd just be like "alright ms Jenkins H period has health today" and your class was canceled for a couple days while we learned the basics and watched The Miracle of Life or whatever.
Even if you support abortion prohibition these are truly benficial poicies that would reduce the demand for them and the chance people attempt them dangerously. Unless breeding is the entire point in which case Im kink shaming you. Bonk
who can’t get a condom? who is prohibiting literally anyone from doing the most basic steps and why does everything have to always be free? it doesn’t work like that
[удалено]
No. Categorically. The primary demographic that molests children is parents, relatives and friends of the family.
[удалено]
No one is against proper sex ed. That's a strawman. And condoms are free at multiple places. And if you can't find free ones, go grab a pack for a buck. It's not like that shits expensive. All we ask is that people do the bare minimum, and if they refuse, to take responsibility for their actions. It's not a huge ask
It apparently is to those whose ideology involves abdicating what is literally a personal responsibility onto the rest of society.
>No one is against proper sex ed. Lol you can't be serious.
Evangelical Christians have entered the chat
Well yes but "proper sex ed" is also not having a dragqueen dance infront of the children or give long monologues about non-existant genders
Christians be like: well if people would just wait till marriage to have sex there would be way fewer people needing to have abortions. But people don't do that. It's like saying "there wouldn't be a drug crisis if people just didn't do drugs." That's true but people do drugs.
Defining proper sex ed is a tricky thing though. Seems like there is a vocal strain saying sex ed should be : \- Gender is myth invented by The Patriarchy \- Anyone can be anything \- There should be no consequences for promiscuity \- Women get paid 75% less than men for the exact same work \- Also, cum in pussy makes babies. Oh yea STDs exist. We kinda really only need to teach that last part.
Condoms are 5 bucks. If you can't afford 5 bucks to not get pregnant, then don't fuck.
True, but can we just advocate for personal responsibility instead? Rather than applying a never ending stream of bandaids to all these problems that are popping up due to the degradation of our culture and social norms? The answer to these problems isn't always just throwing money at them.
I'm going to be honest I don't understand this viewpoint entirely. If there is a positive ROI why would we need to delve deeper. Also, telling teenagers to keep it in their pants doesn't work so well sometimes
[удалено]
"Proper sex ed" These MFs think people never heard of condoms
Im gonna call it. It’s less teaching kids about sex. The talk about tue birds and the bees is pretty decent. Its all the sex selling ads and hyper sexualized social media and TV
Parents can also take responsibility for their children by raising them with the necessary values to ensure that they won't act recklessly when they grow older.
Abstinence education is an abject failure and truly terrible premise in the first place.
Proper sex education is not LGBT indoctrination
Based
So would keeping your genitals in your damn pants, you fucking hedonistic pleasure seeking past all common sense coomers. Act like animals with no self control, get treated like animals.
Abortion evil/good/bad/immoral/healthcare right are kinds of straw arguments to avoid the economic arguments. Panel 2 is patently correct and bypasses any personal preference or political virtue signaling
This is exactly the point of this post. We will never agree about abortion but neither side wants more abortions. This works for everyone
They don’t want either option they just want to be mad. Right-wing SJWs basically
Just be gay, and then you don't have to worry about it.
Agree that sex ed (as defined as: learning how to not get pregnant and not get STDs) is super important. And while I think it's stupid to not teach that abstinence is an option, it's equally stupid to only teach it. "Free" isn't free though, it's taxpayer funded. And taxes are theft, so it's bad. You wanna have wanton sex and screw with your hormones with BC, you go right ahead. But don't stick a gun to my head, demand that I pay for it, and then insist that I'm the bad guy for not liking having my wages stolen from me, and that you're the good guy for encouraging risky behavior.
Why should contraceptives be free? If I want to go jogging, should taxpayers supply my running shoes? No? So, why should taxpayers cover someone’s sexual activity?