Anonymous #1 3d

Such as "may I play with you?" "Can I borrow this, please?" And they're also taught to keep their hands to themselves as well

2

Anonymous #1 3d

Then typically in 8th grade a 1-2 years after 13-14 years old there is normally learning more in depth about the reproductive system and a birth video (at least in my state)

2

Anonymous #1 3d

Only 6 states require students to be taught about consent

14

Anonymous #1 3d

In my state we have a three year video course about the reproductive system and development, from 4th through 6th grade, and consent is lightly touched on there. And then in health class in high school there’s a sex ed unit that explicitly talked about consent. Not sure if its required at the state level but thats what my district did

6

Anonymous #4 3d

I mean I probably don’t remember too well but we had mandatory health class in 6th grade and 9th grade but we never really talked about consent

2

Anonymous OP 3d

Strange

4

Anonymous #4 3d

We mostly talked about drugs lmao and my high school health teacher spent a lot of time on diet and specifically why veganism is good so

3

Anonymous #4 3d

I just think they need to have mandatory sex ed curriculum including consent

5

Anonymous #6 3d

2/2 It was quoted and misquoted so many times it seemed like an entire generation of girls thought there was a 1/3 chance they would be raped going to college. No legal basis for the published study defining SA in such loose terms. Which is to note, stay vigilant against sexual battery, but the odds are not 1/3 for rape just because a girl attends college.

6

Anonymous #6 3d

As a man this is actually helpful. Knowing that I battery happened to me and not assault! I didn’t know thank you!

9

Anonymous #3 3d

At the time federal assault was “an attempt to penetrate however slight” battery was “nonconsensual touching of a sexual manner” And no worries man, I too have been sexual battered more times than I would like to publicly admit.

4

Anonymous #6 3d

Yea it’s happened a few times to me too :/ sorry bro 🫂🫂

6

Anonymous #6 3d

It gets tricky when you consider these definitions vary from state to state

3

Anonymous #6 3d

Health classes should definitely teach the definition of consent and how it’s used practically plus outline the types of SA (sexual battery, rape, assault, harassment) according to the state laws, but I feel like that should be a federal requirement

5

Anonymous #8 3d

#8… I like your passion, but I feel like teen pregnancy and STDs/STIs were pitched to be like “the end of the world” type fear tactics that MIGHT result from people having sex. Then when I started studying the data I found yes they do happen, but both STDs/STIs were more prevalent due to promiscuity rather than lack of sexual education. Me personally, I knew about condoms, didn’t use them much, still managed to dodge many of those bullets. The state can give some kind of sexual education, 1/2

-5

Anonymous #6 3d

2/2 but they really need to dial back the fear tactics on the results and make it more about consent than anything else. I also learned some dark secrets about the truth behind Alabama incest stereotypes, and those are the kids who need tipped off that what’s happening to them is not normal and know there are places they can get help.

0

Anonymous #6 3d

It’s less about teaching prevention and more about hammering in that a lot of these are lifelong illnesses with no cure like herpes

5

Anonymous #6 3d

You drew that conclusion based on that chart? Interesting

1

Anonymous OP 3d

People aren’t getting herpes spontaneously in monogamous relationship. What’s your alternative deduction for the increase over time for all demographics?

0

Anonymous #6 3d

Relationships*

0

Anonymous #6 2d

“i knew about condoms” is MY EXACT POINT of why sex ed is important and a basic knowledge of STDs and STIs existing and being able to be transmitted is important lmao

15

Anonymous #8 2d

Careful. I know it’s not advised in Sex Ed (because why would it be) the dangers of laughing one’s ass off, but most people need their asses both on and strong rather than carelessly discarded for the sake of acronyms.

-1

Anonymous #6 2d

….what? lmao.

7

Anonymous #8 2d

Protect your ass #8!

0

Anonymous #6 2d

#6, sex education IS how we protect our asses. specifically, knowing how to prevent pregnancy LITERALLY protects women from getting an unwanted fistula in the rectum from childbirth, and protects YOUR financial ASSets by keeping you from paying child support for one good time when you were 16.

14

Anonymous #6 2d

I’m just wondering why you think you can draw that very specific conclusion from that graph

1

Anonymous OP 2d

The variables I’m using for the calculation include the graph … going up over time, and the fact that two people without herpes generally don’t contract it from toilet sets contrary to scare tactics marketed to the masses. They get it from cheating/sleeping/kissing a person who has herpes. It’s a pretty simple calculation. Though, if you’re being genuine and don’t understand something about it, if you help me zero in on which part it is, I would be happy to elaborate.

0

Anonymous #6 2d

You recognize you can contract an Std or Sti from a monogamous partner as well correct?

11

Anonymous OP 2d

Okay so how would the monogamist partner originally contract the STD/STI? Excluding statistical outliers like toilet seats or the cases where a mother passes it to the child at or around birth.

0

Anonymous #6 2d

that monogamous partner could have contracted the std/sti from a previous partner?!? Im not quite following your logic

7

Anonymous #6 2d

Let’s use me as an example actually. I have an STI. I don’t consider myself an outlier but I’ve had this STI since childhood. It’s actually a quite common sti that the majority of adults have. And I got it because my dad kissed me on the lips when I was a baby, completely out of my control.

9

Anonymous #6 2d

I mean I guess you can consider me an outlier if you want, but at the end of the day your opinion is nothing more than, your opinion. So have a good one!

6

Anonymous OP 2d

And if they had a previous partner… that would make them not monogamous. Yeah I get your perspective of “monogamy can be 1 with 1” then change people. But over the course of someone’s life, that’s not really monogamy. The manner to reduce and arguably stamp out STDs/STIs is to reduce sexual partners to what it was in historic stable civilizations. Two people, without STDs, who only have sex with one another, their entire lives, will not get STDs. Not judging anyone who didn’t do that, I’m guilty

-1

Anonymous #6 2d

Of it myself, but the most effective way to reduce the spread of STDs, is to minimize the activity that spreads them. I don’t mean to sound obtuse, but this is not rocket surgery.

0

Anonymous #6 2d

Hold on💀 you think monogamy is one virgin with no dating history with one virgin with no dating history?? Is that what you think monogamy means?!? We’ve reached a conclusion then

10

Anonymous #6 2d

Historic civilizations had low rates of stis and std because they were generally unaware of Stis and STDs lmao.

6

Anonymous #6 2d

So the activity that spreads them is unsafe sax and sex education teaches kids to have safe sex. People are going to have sex

8

Anonymous OP 2d

Egypt had condoms allegedly. Ancient civilizations had STDs. It’s even part of biblical cannon. The concept of civilizations being stable when they pair off 1 with 1 for life can be backtested for thousands of years regardless of religion or region. Vikings, islam, nomadic civilizations with multiple wives, the only way for young men to gain territory and status is conquest, whether that be a foreign nation, or within their own civilization, creates instability.

-2

Anonymous #6 2d

“Biblical cannon” alright wrap it up

6

Anonymous OP 2d

No.

1

Anonymous #6 2d

I’m sorry but this conversation can no longer continue. You don’t see me using the twilight series as evidence to support my claims

4

Anonymous OP 2d

I mean, if you think it’s wise, you’re welcome to, that would be quite the feat to argue relevance. I’m happy to support my argument that following biblical codes, or even merely aiming to while falling short, studying civilizations that did and did not, those that did, outperformed those that didn’t. It’s common sense. Nations where people try not to cheat on their spouses tend to have less drama and can focus on helping their neighbors more without concern of someone trying to homewreck.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

What wisdom has the twilight series given you?

-1

Anonymous #6 2d

can you rephrase what you’re trying to say with this graph? I don’t understand how increasing rates shows anything besides people getting it at a variety of ages and keeping it.

6

Anonymous #10 2d

I just had an old dictionary in my hands a few days ago, but basically the strictest definition of monogamy is two people being married for life and only having sex with one another, so under that system or merely aiming for that system STDS/STIS spread less. Even that graph, as OP correctly stated in a prideful way, increases because people are swapping partners.

0

Anonymous #6 2d

Let me reiterate I have an STI because my dad passed it down to me as a baby. So even old school monogamy as you describe could result in me passing it to a partner

5

Anonymous OP 2d

Real possibility that’s true. And genuinely, condolences for the situation you bear. The calculus function for passing of the STI to children would still only be Y = Mx(f) + B or something similar with M=2 if strict monogamy is aimed for, 3,4,5 compounding if not. Y = number of children who contract the STI, but (f) would be the rate it potentially passes, so anything less than 100% and they have less than 2 kids, the disease goes extinct over time. Current US TFR = 1.7 so, we would be on track.

0

Anonymous #6 2d

B would be unknown variables not accounted for in birth passing of the STD, things like getting it from a toilet seat.

0

Anonymous #6 2d

It’s wasn’t passed down through genes

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Rate of passing or (f) would be calculated/found whether it’s passed genetically or through contact. I imagine it’s something like your dad having a cold sore and kissing you as a baby but I don’t aim to pry for details. Please don’t feel any pressure to elaborate.

0

Anonymous #6 1d

I’m still not following your logic here. I can still give my monogamous partner genital herpes if I am not careful when I have a cold sore

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I think we are close despite the disconnect it’s just the definition of strict monogamy/time vs monogamy now, which would include potentially having multiple partners, just one at a time. Kinda heartbreaking that’s what it’s become. Even “monogamy” now doesn’t imply aiming to completely isolate that portion of yourself, with an STD/STI or not. Again, I’m very guilty of sleeping around myself so I’m not gonna judge other people for it. I just don’t recommend it to others because 1/2

0

Anonymous #6 1d

2/2 the consequences of me sleeping around wasn’t an STD/STI, IMO, it was far worse and not anything people would have forwarn me about in a sex-Ed class.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

No no it still makes 0 sense bc even if I was a virgin I could still give my monogamous partner an STI

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Hence why it’s important to teach sex ed and how not to spread STDs and stis

1

Anonymous OP 1d

You might be offended I ask this, but it may help me narrow down the reason our reasoning doest match. It’s relevant: How would you feel if you didn’t eat breakfast or lunch today?

1

Anonymous #6 1d

I would probably feel faint

1

Anonymous #6 1d

I kind of get what you’re saying, but that conclusion doesn’t seem dependent on the shape of the graph at all? Like, if literally everybody was completely monogamous, the numbers would be way lower but still have a similar shape I would expect. Same for any other percentage. The only way there’s ever a downward trend at all is generational trends.

5

Anonymous #10 22h

Like if everyone was to be completely monogamous tonight. Boom. Only have sex with one person who also had the STD/STI, and perhaps never kiss your kids if you have a cold sore. That trend line would be flat. It would not go up. Then, any time someone who herpes died, the line would start going down just a tiny bit. When a generation of people died who had it, it would go down that percentage of its current size.

0

Anonymous #10 22h

So like if there’s never an increase in the number of people getting it because it’s spread already the people who are going to contract it, and those people never sleep with 2-3 more people in their lives. The line can’t go up. It will have to go down anytime a person dies. There’s a tiny additional ratio thing based on the size of the total population, but for the sake of me trying to distill the concept to the extreme, overnight, strict 1 with 1 monogamy for life, at minimum even if those 1/2

0

Anonymous #6 22h

2/2 people with herpes live 300 years, the line would theoretically be flat for 300 years if the total population stayed the same.

1

Anonymous #6 22h

How are people supposed to know these things, like don’t kiss your baby when you have an active cold sore, if we don’t have comprehensive sex in all schools?

1

Anonymous #6 22h

Also strict monogamy for life is simply unrealistic

1

Anonymous OP 22h

OP you know I was never arguing against you for disseminating knowledge about risks. I don’t know if you have me mixed up with another commenter but yeah people should learn risks and how to combat them by editing their behavior. I was just pointing out a flaw in the way it’s been focused on in the past. Yeah it’s not realistic right now. True. It’s just something people can aim for as individuals if they want to reduce their risk of exposure. Have sex with less people, lessen your risk/time.

1

Anonymous OP 22h

Actually I can’t call it unrealistic, the Amish manage to do it, and they are “real” so.

0

Anonymous #6 22h

So my original question was just asking if we should have mandatory sex ed in all schools? If you agree I don’t understand why you are arguing. And schools across America already push monogamy and celibacy

5

Anonymous OP 22h

Because nuance to a subject like that is important and knowing proper targets to aim at rather than what sex Ed has been in the past, more or less a clusterfuck of information with scare tactics either sewn in, or facts left out like “anal sex is safe if you wear a condom” then omitting data about what it does to peoples buttholes if done over the course of decades has been disastrous in the past.

-1

Anonymous #6 22h

I mean actually allegedly it can blow peoples buttholes out in way less time than that, but it’s a conveniently left out fact because people wanted to feel virtuous and accepting short term without explaining risks long term.

-1

Anonymous #6 20h

I hope you’re joking. You can have anal sex without hurting yourself, short term or long term. in regards to the graph, no? that would not be a downward trend still, people dying does not make the percentage of older people with herpes go down relative to younger unless herpes is correlated with earlier death, which afaik it is not.

5

Anonymous #10 20h

Bro doesn’t like scare tactics yet pushed the one used against gay men

1