posted on February 23, 2003 05:33:45 PM newIf it's good enought for Willy, it's good enough for England
Schoolkids to Be Asked to Consider Oral Sex
LONDON (Reuters) - British school children are to be controversially asked to consider oral sex instead of intercourse as part of a drive to cut the country's high teenage pregnancy rate.
Sex education teachers are being trained to discuss with youngsters various "stopping points" on the road to full sex in a bid to reduce the number of teen pregnancies, the government said on Friday.
The idea is to encourage pupils to discover "levels of intimacy," including oral sex, which stop short of full sexual intercourse.
But the plan has been criticized as unworkable by family groups.
"The courses for teachers are to enable them to discuss various sex and relationship issues with pupils. One of those issues is oral sex," said a Department of Health spokeswoman.
"Oral sex is one of the 'stopping points' on the road to intercourse," she said, denying the advice was encouraging sexual activity.
"Another 'stopping point' is to hold hands," she added.
Family groups argue that oral sex is likely to lead to penetrative sex.
"One thing leads to another," said Robert Whelan, director of the Family Education Trust. "It is hard enough for adults to hold back and is even more difficult for teenagers with their raging hormones."
One teacher, who recently attended one of the courses, told the Times newspaper the advice could be construed as a green light to teens.
"By following this course, I feel that teachers are implicitly supporting underage sexual activity," said Lynda Brine.
Whelan also said oral sex was no protection against most sexually transmitted diseases.
"Delaying the onset of teenage sexual activity is the only way to cut teenage pregnancy," he told Reuters.
With nearly 39,000 girls under 18 conceiving each year, Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Western Europe. The government wants to halve it by 2010.
In line with that aim, students have already been offered condoms, oral contraceptives and easier access to counselors in schools.
The Department of Education said on Friday sex education was determined by individual schools.
"We give guidelines but we don't dictate what material is used," a spokeswoman said. "We trust head teachers and teachers to make sensible decisions about sex education.
posted on February 23, 2003 06:32:40 PM new
Ole Willy thought it was acceptable behavior in the White House and it had to have started earlier in his life, like maybe when he was in England on his Rhodes Scholarship.
But I forgot, no one is allowed to slur the name of the great slick one.
posted on February 23, 2003 06:39:31 PM new
You can slur him all you want, if that floats your boat. But it is purely pathetic to stetch as far as you did to do so.
Did the PTB in the British education system consult with Clinton about this plan? No.
Did Clinton advocate that children should engage in oral sex to avoid "full penetration" sex? No.
Is the propsed British program named after Clinton? No.
And guess what? Clinton wasn't the one that publicized that "behavior" to the far corners of the world. That was the Republicans. Clinton wasn't the one that was obsessed with oral sex. That was the Republicans. Was Clinton the only president ever to have an affair while in office? No, but you'd think that was true, to hear the Republicans talk. Did the affair affect how Clinton did his job? No--the Republicans were responsible for that.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 23, 2003 07:51:17 PM new
Bill Clinton wasn't the first president to practice this sexual behavior in the White House, republican or democrat.
He was just the first to have a pack of a**hole republicans want to make it public.
posted on February 23, 2003 08:22:07 PM new
For such a good president, why is it necessary to continue to defend him.
He was and continues to be the same old slimeball living off the American people.
At this week's meeting of the Democratic National Committee, Clinton flunky and DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe described the beating his party took in the 2002 congressional elections as "a wake-up call for us." He explained that "our polls were wrong" and that "something happened that turned some very, very close elections against us."
Yes. That something was a nation finally recognizing what eight years of Democrat "leadership" under Bill Clinton in the White House gave us: terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, goofy judges, North Korean nukes, illegal immigration loopholes, higher taxes, higher spending, inflated stocks, etc., etc., etc.
posted on February 23, 2003 08:47:30 PM new
The right's just gotta have a boogey man, and President Clinton remains their boogey man of choice...he is barely eclipsed by Saddam. Now that he's untouchable, it makes them even madder..
posted on February 23, 2003 08:50:39 PM new
I never could decide if Clinton was the best U.S. president ever, the worst, or neither, but if, as Bear1949 seems to think, he invented oral sex, I'm off the fence. Woo!
posted on February 24, 2003 01:32:39 PM new
President Clinton did more for the men of the World then ANY leader of the past. He is truly one of my Hero's.
Amen,
"It ain't sex"
Reverend Colin
posted on February 25, 2003 09:48:49 AM new
"He was and continues to be the same old slimeball living off the American people."
If the government pension is your problem with Clinton, then I would add that Gerald Ford is probably the biggest waste of a government pension there ever was. A close second would be Bush Sr and Reagan.
The reason the republicans are so fearful of Clinton is because they are running the economy into the ground and are shaking in their boots that the economy will be an issue next election and Clinton will be used against them.
It is almost flattering to Bill Clinton that he remains such an issue with republicans. They better get off of it, people are growing tired of it.
posted on February 25, 2003 11:59:18 AM new
Yeah, that's true alright. Every time I see a Clinton-bashing post or chain email, I hear more and more people growling about it. I suppose if you are a pro-Clinton suppoerter at this point, you'd be encouraging these posts bashing Clinton in public.
