patrick.net

take this info ... and compare it to the rate of invasion of hyper-breeders from mexico into Texas/America over the past 20 years. The population shifted to a demographic that is famous for breeding early and often. You see, those invaders dropping anchors all over, plus freash invaders looking for that free cash lever, have been busy in Texas. Sorry, but once again, conservatism would have saved America. Instead we have to find a way to fix the mess created by liberals - again.

Damn, I wasn't expecting to be hit with the "its the darkies" argument on this one. They are of course the source of all evils. There's just no defense for that argument... Or, okay, maybe there is:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/05/abstinence/report.pdf
http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/25%20States%20Out%20Final.pdf

But no, its probably the darkies.

Only, the birth rate for the USA for 2011 is about 15 per 1000, and in Mexico its about 19. While higher, I'd hardly group that in the "hyper-breeder" category.

But no, its probably the darkies.

Well there is something sexy about talking about sex,
even if it's about NOT having sex, and the audience are kids.

Unfortunately, when you have just about every youth-oriented media outlet promoting promiscuity things will not get better. The three-clicks-away from porn internet isn't helpful either. The social pressure (primarily against girls as they hold the keys to the treasure) that previously existed are essentially non-existent. Got pregnant? Go get an abortion or hurry up and take this pill. Want boys to like you? Dress like a ho and learn kama sutra. Not skinny enough like the photoshopped women in the magazines? Learn how to make yourself puke after lunch or take some diet pills so you can look like Skeletor too.

Paradoxically the same "people" fight against the way men treat women like objects. And we wonder why so many women are on anxiety medication...

EightBall says

Unfortunately, when you have just about every youth-oriented media outlet...

Yeah sure, but that doesn't explain the growths experienced by the specific populations subjected to the 'abstinence only' programs. If it was the same everywhere and could be correlated to the specific media efforts then that might be more of a consideration, to me.

But still, even if that was a dominating factor, you have to wonder what the failing of the 'abstinence only' programs is that they're not able to counter the influence, or maybe also just admit that they're not able to counteract the influence and get on with dealing programs that work for reducing teen pregnancies.

The 'abstinence only' programs function along a method I respect - education - but the facts seems to be that they're failing. Are they failing because they're giving false information, or are they failing because.. I dunno, but they do seem to be failing, don't they?

Eightball, I do agree that there is a huge push to objectify women in our culture. Unfortunately its often the same culture that wants to institute 'abstinence only' programs that are the strongest voice in reducing roles of strength available for women...

The Peer Pressure thing is BS.

I eat cookies when nobody is around.

I learned to masturbate all by myself. I didn't need my buddies to explain to me all about it.

I liked looking at females and was wanting to make whoppee with them without anybody's advice or assistance sometime around the age of 11-12, when I realized they were 'no longer the enemy'.

Previous to that time in my life, if I saw kissing people on TV I'd change the channel. "Where's Voltron? This sucks." I remember finding my dad's porn around 9 when I was looking for swiss army knives and matches in his dresser and saying to myself "Yuck! I'm not doing that weird shit with yucky girls".

Saying that teens are peer pressured into wanting to make whoppee is as silly as saying people are peer pressured into wanting pizza or chocolate cupcakes.

The desire to make whoppee is as hard wired in the brain as the desire to obtain fats and sugar in food.

kentm says

I dunno, but they do seem to be failing, don't they?

They sure do. Safe-sex education might reduce pregnancy but I'm pretty sure it doesn't reduce sexual activity. One can argue that one or the other is morally right or wrong but when I heard a public school kid in 5th grade tell my son about how they taught him the "generally recognized three ways of having sex" I think it has gone off the moral bandwagon.

thunderlips11 says

The desire to make whoppee is as hard wired in the brain as the desire to obtain fats and sugar in food.

It is hardwired into the brain of young men and probably at a young age you can't really overcome it (no pun intended). But for some reason the pregnancy rate wasn't as high in the past or people wouldn't be lamenting how high it is now. So, something changed along the way. If 50 years ago people weren't being taught how to use birth control and the teen pregnancy rate was lower, you have to ask what has changed? It probably isn't the boys.

thunderlips11 says

I learned to masturbate all by myself.

Too much information.

kentm says

Eightball, I do agree that there is a huge push to objectify women in our culture. Unfortunately its often the same culture that wants to institute 'abstinence only' programs that are the strongest voice in reducing roles of strength available for women...

Therein lies the paradox. One group wants to empower women but turn them into half naked barbies at the same time. The other side wants to dress them like they are Amish but install a glass ceiling.

There are a lot of these paradoxes around - my personal favorite is the one that find it reprehensible that male chicks (as in baby chickens) are ground into dog food and go to great lengths to "expose" this horrific treatment of animals. At the same time they are on the same side of grinding unborn children to bits and throwing them in the dumpster.

You've got anti-abortion nutjobs that support the death penalty. If a life is sacred, isn't all life sacred?

The 2nd amendment crowd often wants to trample on the 1st through censorship to "protect" people from vile and disgusting things they feel are disguised as art. The 1st amendment crowd wants to deny the 2nd amendment because they want to protect people from certain (or all) types of firearms. Aren't both positions against the constitution even though both claim to have the constitution on their side?

I'm not saying each individual person either has one or the other side of these paradoxes but collectively there are two groups labeled as "liberal" or "conservative" who, for the most part, support one paradox or the other.

EightBall says

But for some reason the pregnancy rate wasn't as high in the past or people wouldn't be lamenting how high it is now.

Eightball, it was. Check out "A World Lit Only by Fire" by William Manchester. In the 15th Century, most teenagers across Europe were shotgun married. There is a vast haul of church records available, and many of them show baptism records for children of parents who were only married a couple of months before. Either they had premature birth technology that surpassed today, or the baby was conceived well before wedlock.

In previous eras, teens were so eager to sleep with each other, they were allowed to do so when the "Banns" were read, rather than waiting for the official wedding.

Pre-Industrial European history is full of laments by Priests and Pastors about the lecherousness of their flock; it was very common for them to have mistresses of their own. Previously, historians have thought it just moaning by the usual suspects, but based on the evidence it seems they were pointing out the usual M.O. of humanity.

Out-of-wedlock births is the norm, for all but the upper classes, in human history. The industrial era is exceptional.

" At the same time they are on the same side of grinding unborn children to bits and throwing them in the dumpster."

I see abortion as birth control, really. What a woman does with their own body, including what happens to a potential-person / soon-to-be-baby inside her body, is of no concern to me. Even late-term abortions. 99.9% of these are done for medical reasons anyway.

"The 1st amendment crowd wants to deny the 2nd amendment because they want to protect people from certain (or all) types of firearms. Aren't both positions against the constitution even though both claim to have the constitution on their side?"

The 2nd amendment was originally about preserving the state militia and the general citizenry's competence with and access to firearms sufficient to defend themselves against aggressors regardless of what happened at the Federal or international level.

Handguns for home defense has nothing to do with this, yet the court mistakenly ruled so in Heller.

The state always has the police power to enact law to preserve the public order and safety.

And yes, our rights and freedoms often conflict with each other. That's what living in a society with other people produces.

In the pre-industrial age, people didn't HAVE access to reliable birth control methods.

Now they do.

To deny education in, and use of same, is willful ignorance and criminal neglect.

We no longer have "shotgun weddings" AFAIK. Has Texas instituted compulsory marriage of unwed mothers to the father? I predict there'll be an abrupt exodus of baby daddies.

Vicente says

In the pre-industrial age, people didn't HAVE access to reliable birth control methods.

Agreed, which was why there were so many "Shotgun Weddings". Those peasant concoctions had a high level of failure preventing or aborting a pregnancy.

If there was no marriage, the baby was often exposed or dropped off at a 'foundling hospital' (orphanage). Rousseau, who had the gall to write a book on child rearing, dropped all of his many out-of-wedlock children there.

My point is that many teens have and always will shag before marriage.

Hence, learning about STDs, Pregnancy, and which methods of birth control can prevent them - is important. It shouldn't be left to silly moralistic "education" that focuses on Chasity, since it's an ideal few can achieve even in both the richest and harshest of times.