Chicagoist: Stella Foster's "Random" Thoughts On Sex Ed

Jess D'Amico

Wed, 28 May 2008 11:00:23 -0600

@lulu: lol

Sticky Fingers

Wed, 28 May 2008 10:25:35 -0600

She said "stiff consequences"...hehe.

UTV

Wed, 28 May 2008 07:28:52 -0600

For a major newspaper columnist in a global city to write something this ignorant ... just, wow. Lord knows that sex education preoccupies kids with sex. Unlike, say, hormones or the onset of puberty.

lulu

Wed, 28 May 2008 05:59:14 -0600

"THE RECENT reports of teens and pre-teens engaging in oral sex is sending shock waves across the country and leaving parents stunned. I ask why are parents so shocked to find out that kids, some as young as 11 and 12, think that as long as it is not intercourse, it's OK?" For the record, teens and pre-teens have been engaging in oral sex since I was in high school, which was a good 20 years ago. The thing that shocked me, when I started teaching in the public schools, was how common anal sex was, and how the girls frequently prefaced it with "only" as in "we're not having sex, we're only having anal sex." When I was in high school Butt Fuck was a place out past Woodfield, not an activity.

staticfritz

Tue, 27 May 2008 20:19:07 -0600

"condoms don’t protect against several of them, anyway." um....like which? "So what is the real rate of effectiveness, given that a single act of unprotected sex results in a pregnancy something like 5% of the time?" uh, an unprotected act would not count, that's the point behind the effectiveness numbers of USING condoms... "gets an incurable case of HSV from a one-night stand he thought would be just a good ol’ time because he wore protection." how do you propose he gets hsv? you make a lot of really out there remarks...not sure how you formulated that argument. at least I agree with your mid-point "So kids, in fact, need real education" which, would be real sex ed that doesn't tip-toe around the issues.

A2

Tue, 27 May 2008 17:59:19 -0600

Obviously not teaching kids sex education is ridiculous, but so is the current zeitgeist, that “If we can just get kids to wear condoms, everything will be okay.” TRY AGAIN. Condoms are about 90 percent effective; birth control, taken imperfectly—as almost everyone takes it—about the same; STDs are RAMPANT and condoms don’t protect against several of them, anyway. Further, those effectiveness rates are culled from “people using them consistently who nevertheless got pregnant.” So what is the real rate of effectiveness, given that a single act of unprotected sex results in a pregnancy something like 5% of the time? Much worse. So kids, in fact, need real education… they need to learn that about a third of the population is infected with HSV, which is incurable, and it’s still very possible to get HPV, also widely spread, even with a condom. Kids are dumb…or ignorant. And lenient attitudes from parents haven’t helped. Studies about the effectiveness of something nation-wide doesn’t mean anything to the individual in Wyoming who impregnates his girlfriend because he thought he had a fail-safe contraceptive with the pill, or the 20 year old who gets an incurable case of HSV from a one-night stand he thought would be just a good ol’ time because he wore protection. I understand the columnist’s very clumsily made point, that entertainment, intentionally or simply by appealing to what people want to see, paints sex as being some kind of harmless activity bearing all the consequences of baking a cake…which it is not. It is an act which has the capacity for life-altering consequences at every instance, particularly for the young and unmarried.

Prescott Carlson

Tue, 27 May 2008 17:28:22 -0600

STELLA'S COLUMN just inspired me go watch "Tip Drill" on YouTube, and now I want to have anonymous sex with a random skank. So who's REALLY contributing to the downfall of society? Yeah, I said it!

Ward Up

Tue, 27 May 2008 17:28:01 -0600

Another reason why "Sun-Times" has become synonymous with "mediocre."