Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

    This thread took off to Mars, didn't it. I have a couple of things to add.

    I remember two kinds of people in high school....those having sex and those without a sex partner.

    Condoms are relatively easy to come by. In my day, Planned Parenthood had a fishbowl of "Lifestyles" on the counter free for the taking with no questions asked. They can still be purchased at gas stations, drug stores, supermarkets, big box stores and if you're on the shy side in many gas station/ truckstop/ restuarant men's rooms and hotel lobby/hallway vending machines. I also remember 2 or 3 guys sharing an econo box of rubbers and the bold one making the purchase. Getting the condoms isn't a problem.

    The original post was about an amendment to a law. The law forced someone, who was underage themself, to carry the stigma of "sexual predator" for the rest of their lives for their part in a consensual act. It has nothing to do with the government passing out condoms in a newfangled sex ed class that promotes promiscuity.

    I don't see how anyone's morals have anything to do with some 16 year old kid screwing his 15 and 3/4 year old girlfriend getting caught and spending the rest of his life on a sex offender list. It's ridiculous, whether you think they should be having sex or not.
    I'm in these bands
    The Humans
    Dr. Goldfoot
    The Bar Brawlers
    ME

    Comment


    • Re: OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

      Yes this thread has gone to mars and back.

      I really had to think if I wanted to get into this one or not.
      So many topics and points on this one.
      First as far as religious beliefs go, A parent's job is to provide their experience , teachings to their children and place them on the right path
      that they think is correct. But that's as far as you can go. From there you can only hope they fall back on the good "values" (aka morals).
      You cannot force them by sheer will to do anything, and in fact as we all know that sometimes encourages the very behavior you hoping for them to avoid.

      As far condom distribution this is a seperate topic from sex ed. I was fairly sure of this , but not 100%, until I heard it again just this morning on the today show. Teen Pregnancy is at a record low, and condom usage among teens is up, hmm imagine the connection there. I want to say without searching for the AP wire report on this that underage sex was down as well . I think teens today do not get near enough credit for how far emotionally they have evolved, and are certainly more informed and bombarded with data and facts more than any other generation.

      If you surveyed the amount of teens that did not have condoms handed out to them for free at school or wherever, that had unprotected sex because of just that, I willing to bet that is a very very small percentage. I don't think we are giving todays'15-7 year old female her just due here, how many girls, women if you will of that age range would tolerate the lame excuse I can't afford a condom or too embarrased from their b/fs ?

      Not too many I would suppose. And that usually the ones handed out are the cheap ones that most know aren't as uh.. "durable"

      My point on this part is while we should not suppress sex ed one bit in the classroom , condom distribution is higly overatted as an answer to the masses.

      Don't get me wrong there are going to be few who do have unprotected sex because they are embarrased or somehow don't have access to them but that is a small amount.

      I don't have too big of a problem I guess with them being available at a 9-12th grade level, provided they are presented in a responsible manner.
      As in the extensive education regarding the risk, consequences, dangers, facts and figures have been ingrained, instead of just being passed out as candy, which does happen at times.

      Then there is the religious side of this.
      You should know if you taught your child well, and they intend to make the right decisions according to what you believe and taught them, then
      they won't have a problem with it. If they are "tempted" to have sex because of just this, then that's part of being a human being, and again goes back to the beliefs and values instilled on them.

      Now as a society, as has been decades, centuries we have shifted to a more liberal view. The church as well, where the "world" was in certain views 25. 30, 40 years ago, in large part that is where the average christian church is today, again in most views. Some things the church frowned upon 10 years ago, they only smirk at now, and will tolerate in another 10-20 years. Not the core principles or beliefs of the church just the "add-in":
      You know the things that are really nowhere in the bible, and each church chooses to interpret differently, as is their perrogative to do so.

      I do think however it's imparative that between the school and parents sex ed is administered thoroughly and responsibly. I think some parents , although well intended, provide sex prevention only, Which is probably the most dangerous. " Don't touch it, don't think about it, dont think about touching it... Because I said so, because the church says so. That alone just doesn't cut it for most. It just peaks curiosity on what could be so bad and prohibited that you refuse to talk about it.

      Meanwhile the parents who are very open and honest with thier kids and even place their daughters on the pill in some extreme cases , while that is other very extreme point of view, at times it has the exact intended result of the parent who did not want to talk about. For those who do decide to be active early, they have been overwhelmed and bombarded with information extremely more likely to practice the safest most precautios sex experience vs those who jump into it blindly head first, and poorly educated. I believe.some of the curiosity thrill is removed when your parents say ok I know you may be active soon, it's not as glamorous as you may have heard from your friends or tv, but it's not taboo until the age of 30 either.

      So here are the risks , and here are the precautions you need to take. It's up to you.. So know the secrecy and connotation have been lifted.
      Most any parent really does not want their teenager to be active at all of course,but as a very realsitic view all parents were teenagers and saying do as I say not, as I might have did , does not work too well. How drastically different is this then saying I know I taught you to drive safe, and to avoid other dangerous drivers as well, so why do you buckle up when you drive , unless you are planning to drive dangerous ?

      Why because like driving the unexpected can happen, because you can't be there over their shoulder every minute. And if you genuinley have a
      heart to heart talk about all that sex involves, with the provision that you do not wish for them to engage in it too early, but if by any chance they do
      it is imparative for their life's sake they take every possible precaution.You as a parent are concerned and care about their health just as you do their virtue, and will do anything you can to protect both.

      Now as far as the age thing, the part of remvoing sexual charge from a 16 or 17year old with a 15 year old relationship does makes sense in most cases. 14 is certainly pushing it I agree. I have a nine year old and I don't even want to think about what the next 6-8 years hold in that regard let alone five years from now.

      However it's not the law or the state that gives the go ahead to be active. It's the values, and education or the lack thereof that helps make the decision for the teenager's as well as hormone's that's a large factor, but again that is why they have the knowledge you provided to fall back on.

      I do have a problem with a 18 with a 14 year old , especially if the 14 year old has a maturity of 12 or 13 year old. They can be easily influenced and misled very quickly. But that is why a Louisville Slugger kept handily by the front door... uh I mean.. That is why it's imparative to keep as close tabs as you can on your kid.

      Three year difference I think is better as far as consensual relationships. 15 going on 16, and a person who just turned 18 is more prevalent then some realize. 18 and 14 .. hmm part of me says if that where to happen either myself or the boy is going to jail.. but hey that's the father talking so just being honest there... just needed to vent, thanks
      Last edited by Frank Slade; 07-13-2007, 09:52 AM.

      Why Not Us ?

      Comment


      • Re: OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

        Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
        Yeah, I see the importance of that. My reservations (if you were responding to me, that is) lie with giving condoms to kids who would otherwise have remained abstinent - if they have easy access to these products, does this make them more likely to engage in such activities?
        I think an analogy with drugs can be made here. The percentage of people using "soft" drugs like cannabis, marijuanna, etc is lower in my country, with a very liberal policy, compared to most European countries and the US that have very strict policies. At the sametime the number of "hard" drug users is lower mostly too.

        Another example. Abortion which is legal until a certain period of the pregnancy is not at all higher compared to other western countries nearby where it is illegal. In fact a lot of women from countries where it is illegal come here and drive up the number of abortions done in this country exponantially, so go figure if you take that number away.

        Now in both cases I am against using drugs and in most cases against abortion. Actually, I totally despise drugs. But, the liberal policy in both cases has not resulted at all in an explosion of drugusers or abortion.

        There is a lot of education here on safe sex and what damage drugs do. I am sure that has to do with it. I think pragmatism in a lot of cases is a good thing. Beying very morally correct is nice and all, but if it results in just bringing out your "message" and nothing else, sticking your head in the sand and letting things happen then I think you are asking for trouble aka lots of teen pregnancies in the case of teenagers having unprotected sex.

        Regards,

        Mourning
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

        Comment


        • Re: OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

          In short, education > *

          Comment


          • Re: OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

            Originally posted by Mourning View Post
            I think an analogy with drugs can be made here. The percentage of people using "soft" drugs like cannabis, marijuanna, etc is lower in my country, with a very liberal policy, compared to most European countries and the US that have very strict policies. At the sametime the number of "hard" drug users is lower mostly too.

            Another example. Abortion which is legal until a certain period of the pregnancy is not at all higher compared to other western countries nearby where it is illegal. In fact a lot of women from countries where it is illegal come here and drive up the number of abortions done in this country exponantially, so go figure if you take that number away.

            Now in both cases I am against using drugs and in most cases against abortion. Actually, I totally despise drugs. But, the liberal policy in both cases has not resulted at all in an explosion of drugusers or abortion.

            There is a lot of education here on safe sex and what damage drugs do. I am sure that has to do with it. I think pragmatism in a lot of cases is a good thing. Beying very morally correct is nice and all, but if it results in just bringing out your "message" and nothing else, sticking your head in the sand and letting things happen then I think you are asking for trouble aka lots of teen pregnancies in the case of teenagers having unprotected sex.

            Regards,

            Mourning
            Who said anything about sticking their heads in the sand. One MAJOR key not spoken of anywhere in this thread is to be very involved with your kid. We have a requirement, and my kids adhere to it faithfully, you call us. If you are leaving school in broad daylight, you call and let us know. If you are out with friends and going to somebody else's house...you call us. If on a date, you call when you are headed home (yes we know what movie they are going to and when they should be home)...if plans change, you call us. And again, my kids are very good at adhereing to this rule. Jr's gf, thought it was "cute" but has adopted it and now calls her parents to let them know what is going on.
            Being an involved parent and building trust goes a long way in getting your message heard. I am not foolish enough to think that solves all of my problems but I have a LOT less than those who chicken out and stay out of their kids life.
            I am also fortunate enough to have a very moral son who wishes to be a Church Choir director when he is established enough to do so. He already is director of the youth choir in our church. Fortunate? Yes, but we have helped bring this about by raising him in a home of high expectations.
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • Re: OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

              Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
              Who said anything about sticking their heads in the sand. One MAJOR key not spoken of anywhere in this thread is to be very involved with your kid. We have a requirement, and my kids adhere to it faithfully, you call us. If you are leaving school in broad daylight, you call and let us know. If you are out with friends and going to somebody else's house...you call us. If on a date, you call when you are headed home (yes we know what movie they are going to and when they should be home)...if plans change, you call us. And again, my kids are very good at adhereing to this rule. Jr's gf, thought it was "cute" but has adopted it and now calls her parents to let them know what is going on.
              Being an involved parent and building trust goes a long way in getting your message heard. I am not foolish enough to think that solves all of my problems but I have a LOT less than those who chicken out and stay out of their kids life.
              I am also fortunate enough to have a very moral son who wishes to be a Church Choir director when he is established enough to do so. He already is director of the youth choir in our church. Fortunate? Yes, but we have helped bring this about by raising him in a home of high expectations.
              Your son sounds like a great guy and I'm sure that is in part because of you and your wife's parenting approach.

              I am not a parent, I do have 4 nephews and 3 nieces - ranging from 13 years old to 4 years old. It will be very interesting to see how they mature over the next few years - two of them live in a very strict christian home and the other 5 live in two families where religion isn't prominant at all, but strict morals are enforced.

              It has been interesting to watch the parents and how they raise their kids because each set of parents have what I think are strengths and weaknesses and I can clearly see how these parenting strengths are weaknesses are showing up in their kids. I'll be facinated to see what happens during their teenage years. Not that they will tell their "Uncle Buck" anything.

              My parents weren't that strict they didn't have a lot of rules, I really did not have a curfew in HS - although it was understood that I was to be home at a decent hour. My parents were very involved with my life and my friends lives and knew what we were doing. But certainly there was a lot of stuff I did that my parents to this day know nothing about (And I hardly did anything that I shouldn't - I've always hated getting into trouble)

              But more than anything it would have killed me to ever disappoint my mom and the reason was not because I would have broken some rule, but because we had a very, very close relationship first and foremost (oh sure she was mom, and clearly not a friend, but we were very close and I had no intention of letting her down) I never went through a rebellious stage and I think part of that is because I didn't have a ton of rules to try and keep. It was just understood that drugs were not even a possiblity, alcohol was not in the equation, and sex was something you did inside of marriage only. You were going to college, you were going to get good grades, you were not going to be a loser. My 2 older brothers and 2 older sisters also made sure of it. And today that we are all grown adults - all of us turned out very well. No one was ever arrested. None of us were perfect growing up that is for sure, but my parents did a great job raising us.

              Sorry for getting off on that tangent - forgot what my point was. Oh I think it is the most important thing to me is that parents and kids have a very close relationship built on trust - not built on a bunch of rules that kids spend all their time figuring out how to break and how to cover-up.
              Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-13-2007, 02:20 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

                I agree Buck, we don't have a bunch of rules or curfews but we do have expectations. Geezerette will be a bit of a bigger challenge but is totally crushed w/e I mentioned how disappointed I am in something she did or failed to do.

                You don't need a bunch of rules, but what you have has to be consistently enforced. yada yada nobody listening anymore.


                My final thought.....My pappy used to say "A parents primary job is to make their kids life so miserable that they want to get a job and move out. When they do, you've been a success."
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • Re: OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

                  Geezer I aggree with you, but let's be real. We both know that there are a lot of parents out there who don't adopt the same methods. I was brought similarely (sp?) to what you described, but that's not the case for everyone and expecting everyone to adopt it is... well not very realistic IMO.

                  Sticking your head in the sand in short in the sense of the government/educational system going full course on the "abstain until"-policy and not bringing in security measures is what I was talking about . That's totally ignoring hormones, awakening of sexual feelings and well generally a teenagers mindset (the "uh, yeah mum I know... duh"-mentality ). THAT IMO is sticking your hand in the sand and what I was talking about.

                  So, like efx said, education, yes, combined with precautionairy (sp?) measures.

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • Re: OK kiddies, you may now have sex in Indiana

                    I found this article interesting:

                    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/ed...nted=1&_r=1&hp

                    Abstinence Education Faces an Uncertain Future

                    By LAURA BEIL
                    Published: July 18, 2007

                    HALLSVILLE, Tex. — When Jami Waite graduated from high school this year in this northeastern Texas town, her parents sat damp-eyed in the metal bleachers of Bobcat Stadium, proud in every way possible. Their youngest daughter was leaving childhood an honor graduate, a band member, a true friend, a head cheerleader — and a steadfast virgin.

                    “People can be abstinent, and it’s not weird,” she declared. With her face on billboards and on TV, Ms. Waite has been an emblem of sexual abstinence for Virginity Rules, which has risen from a single operation in nearby Longview to become an eight-county abstinence franchise.

                    For the first time, however, Virginity Rules and 700 kindred abstinence education programs are fighting serious threats to their future. Eleven state health departments rejected abstinence education this year, while legislatures in Colorado, Iowa and Washington passed laws that could kill, or at least wound, its presence in public schools.

                    Opponents received high-caliber ammunition this spring when the most comprehensive study of abstinence education found no sign that it delayed a teenager’s sexual debut. And, after enjoying a fivefold increase in their main federal appropriations, the abstinence programs in June received their first cut in financing from the Senate appropriations committee since 2001.

                    But the final outcome is in question. Some $176 million in federal support has survived several early maneuvers in the House, and the full House plans to debate the issue July 18 as part of the proposed Health and Human Services budget.

                    Lost in the political rancor, however, is that teenagers throughout the country are both abstaining more, and, especially among older ones, more likely to use contraception when they do not abstain.

                    While the reasons are not all understood, government data show the trend began years before abstinence education became the multimillion-dollar enterprise it is today. Through a combination of less sex and more contraception, pregnancy and birth rates among American teenagers as a whole have been falling since about 1991. Texas, however, has seen the smallest decline despite receiving almost $17 million in the name of virginity.

                    No state has more to lose in this battle than Texas, which draws more abstinence money than any other. Drive through the piney woods of northeastern Texas, and the earnest faces of adolescents appear on billboards with slogans like “No is where I stand until I have a wedding band.”

                    The Longview Wellness Center, which sponsors Virginity Rules, collects almost $1 million annually in abstinence financing, and serves 33 area school districts.

                    Even in this state, where President Bush acquired his loyalty to the policy, abstinence cannot be typecast. Megan Randolph of Dallas, who like Jami Waite just finished high school, believes in the abstinence message. But she is bothered by courses that try to scare teenagers with harrowing talk of ruined lives. “In those classes, there are going to be kids who have had sex and that hasn’t happened,” Ms. Randolph said. “So they’re going to think that doesn’t apply to them.”

                    Teenagers, she said, crave unfettered information — the kind restricted under federal abstinence education law, which discourages intimacy outside marriage but provides no instruction for safer sex.

                    At her school, Ms. Randolph, 19, was the “sexpert,” the one girls often called late at night, asking questions. And this year, before leaving Dallas to attend the Air Force Academy, Ms. Randolph was hailed as volunteer of the year by the area’s Planned Parenthood — part of abstinence education’s axis of evil.

                    In northeastern Texas, advocates of abstinence education vow to fight for their mission because to them, it is not just a matter of sexuality or even public health. Getting a teenager to the other side of high school without viruses or babies is a bonus, but not the real goal. They see casual sex as toxic to future marriage, family and even, in an oblique way, opposition to abortion.

                    “You have to look at why sex was created,” Eric Love, the director of the East Texas Abstinence Program, which runs Virginity Rules, said one day, the sounds of Christian contemporary music humming faintly in his Longview office. “Sex was designed to bond two people together.”

                    To make the point, Mr. Love grabbed a tape dispenser and snapped off two fresh pieces. He slapped them to his filing cabinet and the floor; they trapped dirt, lint, a small metal bolt. “Now when it comes time for them to get married, the marriage pulls apart so easily,” he said, trying to unite the grimy strips. “Why? Because they gave the stickiness away.”

                    Shoring up marriage was Robert Rector’s vision a decade ago. A fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Rector wrote the first bill that legally defined abstinence education, and got it attached as a stowaway to the 1996 welfare overhaul, backed with $50 million for the states. A later Congress, irked at states’ finding loopholes in the original intent, designated a second pool of abstinence money in 2001, now the lifeblood of the movement.

                    Mr. Rector says viewing abstinence primarily through the lens of public health distracted the focus from marriage. “Once you understand that that’s the principal issue,” he said, “you understand that handing out condoms to a 17-year-old is utterly irrelevant.”

                    Strengthening marriage this way may resonate with teenagers like Ms. Waite, whose conviction is planted in a deeply held marital value, but not necessarily with Ms. Randolph, who says she is more preoccupied with succeeding in the Air Force than with marriage.

                    In abandoning abstinence education, states have largely said that comprehensive sex education programs, which discuss contraception beyond the failure rates, have a better scientific grounding. New laws in Colorado, Iowa and Washington state that sex education must be based on “research” or “science” — which is often interpreted as code for programs that include discussions of safer sex.

                    Much of the data cited in support of the efficacy of abstinence programs are from surveys taken immediately before and after a program. These commonly find an increase in intentions to stay abstinent, but do not necessarily mean that a year later, high on emotion, teenagers will follow the script.

                    Most studies so far have found no significant impact on behavior, and the few that do see only modest changes. In April, Mathematica Policy Research released a report that was nine years and $8 million in the making. Scientists followed middle school children enrolled in four separate abstinence programs for about five years, and found no difference in the age of first intercourse between them and their peers.

                    Opinions vary on whether the absence of evidence — to borrow from Carl Sagan — is evidence of absence. One of the leading experts on sex education programs, Dr. John Jemmott of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, says some abstinence education programs in the future might show promise. He is hopeful about an abstinence curriculum that he has designed which, unlike many, tries to get teenagers to think long-term about their behavior and its consequences, questioning, for example, whether a boyfriend would really love you if you had sex with him. Many programs dwell on the risks of sex, not the reasons.

                    Dr. Jemmott knows many colleagues view abstinence education as a failed experiment. “I think that is unfair,” he said. “I think what they should say is there is not enough evidence to state whether it is efficacious.” On the other hand, he said, it is also unfair to say that sex education that discusses — without maligning — condoms encourages sex. Data from many programs, in fact, find the opposite.

                    [Those who thought abstinence education financing would decline swiftly under a Democratic watch were wrong: On July 11, the full House extended state grants through September — a reprieve at the edge of expiration. That same day, the House Appropriations Committee increased spending, a political move to make the proposed Health and Human Services budget more appealing to Republicans, said Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, the committee chairman.]

                    While the future of abstinence education is unclear, Mr. Love, back in Longview, believes “the message will go on, whether the government decides to fund it or not.”

                    Just ask Jami Waite. The former cheerleader is carrying her resolve to college, where she is on her way to becoming a nurse. One day she plans to wed. Until then, she says, virginity will rule.
                    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X