Schools and Sexual content

For more giggles and examples of Goldfarb practicing cherry picking,

the study Goldfarb did

excluded any studies from her literature review for this paper,

that studied pregnancy prevention programs and STD disease prevention programs effects to reduce teen pregnancy and teen STD transmission,

if they did not also include sexual education or abortion access advocacy components,

Which according to her study selection disclosure, accounted for 80% of the studies that would otherwise have been included, being excluded.

Meaning they excluded 80% of the studies that deal with reducing teen pregnancy and reducing teen STD transmission from their paper,

If they were abstinence based programs, that were anti-abortion programs, that had a positive effect on reducing teen pregnancies or teen STD transmission.


Who funded Goldfarb’s study, again?

And what does Goldfarb sell and license to schools?

You are a certified sex educator?

He is a practitioner and has expertise regarding the domain of abusive parents, which is an area you have frequently invoked as a rationale for why counselors should not inform parents when children disclose they are gay to school employees, or express gender dysphoria, or announce they are trans, etc.

And some comments you have made that abusive parents are the reason, that the school, and not the parents are the primary parties responsible for the child’s welfare, and decisions about the child’s welfare.

Are abusive parents a concern of yours, or not, regarding gay or trans children?

And other children…

I believe you made many posts earlier, that the possibility of abusive parents were the rationale you were espousing for not just counselors / the school not disclosing things to parents,
but also a primary rationale of yours for Comprehensive Sex Ed, instead other alternatives.

I believe you also made a few posts where you implied if we did not agree with your positions, then we were not concerned, or concerned enough about abusive parents, and that we therefore did not really care, or were not really concerned about the children.

So, if abusive parents are a concern, abusive parents are the domain, he professionally works in.

And he is an expert, regarding that domain, abusive parents.

1 Like

No, and I also don’t need to be a professional footballer to notice when somebody is trying to move the goals.

1 Like

I gues i will do the easy one first.

The Grove foundation and sex ed books.

In what capacity?

And two CSE curriculums, that schools may license.

I think it is often useful to do the easy ones first, too.

I will let him answer or not.

First, because I am not him.

And second, for all the other reasons, regarding his profession, and employment,

and this place being what it is, and is not.

Was that the full scope of what they were trying to look for?

Is trying to suggest sex ed is just designed to stop pregnancy. More of a biased view of sex ed.

I actually read her paper.
I did not just watch the reader’s digest video.
And I read some of the Rollston papers as well, and Rollston also discusses that theme.
So, I know the answer to your question as they have defined it, and talked about it.

But, it does not seem as if you read her paper, the one you posted a link for.

Perhaps you should actually read it, and then answer.

Unless, you want me to answer, because you read it, and still are uncertain, what she and her co-authors meant as the scope.

It that is the case, I will gladly help bring you from the dark, into the light, which being her light, and her co-authors, is what it is, and is not, what it isn’t.

Who here, on this thread, made that claim or definition?

Also why did you post a screenshot?

Do you need help reading it and interpreting it?

Otherwise, why are you burning those electrons, in storage, and computing, on the system?

Because you did not make not commentary on it, nor did you ask a question about it.

As if electrons for screenshots were free, or posts were, in their aggregate…

The problem remains, my dear Australian reader,

As Rollston, elegantly and honestly disclaims, is there is a lack, to put it mildly, of rigorous scientific evidence, that the CSE that either of them advocate, demonstrates benefits, over the alternatives, such as abstinence only, or abstinence plus programs particularly.

And according to non-partisan meta studies, CSE may cause a little less positive outcomes than abstinence plus programs, and several times more negative outcomes.

Rollston, has the integrity to disclaim, that CSE is the position she advocates, because that is the community she advocates for, and it most closely aligns with their ideological beliefs, and what they may need, as a result of their ideological beliefs, to drive things like adoption of preventative medicine for cancer screenings, and viral screenings, and other medical needs of the people in that community.

And if I am brutally and bluntly honest, not because of external non-members of that community,
but because it is an appeal to try and get them, the LGBTQ community,
to comply with medical needs for their own selves good for them, that they are not particularly compliant with,
whether or not they are fully educated or sex educated, particularly the gay males,
and members of the trans community,
is a troublesome and vexing problem they create for themselves, like a snake eating its own tail.

Like transmale cervical cancer screenings, and HIV risk and disease management, in the gay male community.

In that way, it is not about sex, but trying to surf a surf board, and waves,
of a male homosexual community with extremely poor condom compliance,
with or without any type of sex ed program,
with extremely high rates of HIV and STD transmission,
and a trans community, who has higher rates of mental illness, and substance abuse issues,
especially in the black transfemale communities,
where rates of sex work, in areas where sex work, and illegal drug trafficking,
and peripheral crimes of violence, is very high.

Which makes Rollston one of he more honest chess pieces on the board,
other than yours truly,
who is just looking at the available data, and trying to make decisions based on what might really have material impacts, in material ways, for dollars spent,
without regard to ideological considerations, other than frugality is a virtue,
if there is no material return on investment for tax dollars spent.

But what do I know?

I am only a data scientist, trained to read studies, who provided medical care to HIV and AIDs patients for several years, when the HIV epidemic first broke out, many of them gay males, and not IV drug users.

And here we get into areas like adoption (not adoption of children), and compliance.

In this idea, @gregaquaman, here I give you ammunition for your non-gun, or an argument you could make, that has practical weight, and theoretical grounding.

The chief justifiable reason for CSE for gay people and trans people,

is not that it benefits anyone else.

And not that it reduces bullying, or whether or not gay or trans children are bullied more, or less.

It’s not because of the idea of “abusive parents”, or any externality

other than what Fred Rogers talked about in his Diffusion of Innovations essays.

Here we have some extremely non-compliant communities,

who put their own selves at risk,

namely the gay male community,

and the “trans” community,

with risk loving behaviors.

Who may only be resonant to messages made and sent by perceived members of their own community.

Which is why I am sympathetic to Rollston’s approach.

That does not mean in any way that the CSE curriculum is good for any one else, or even that it is good, period.

But it may cause signal sender to receiver resonance in the small percentage of signal receivers who may be wired to reject signals on non-homophilic (that term has nothing to do with homosexuality) channels.

This pains me to say it, but this is the @BrevardFighter moment.

No message, no matter how good, or how useful, may be accepted in some potential signal receivers,

unless it is perceived to be sent on a channel or from a source that resonates with the gay male or trans community.

That and this, has nothing to do with discrimination, except as channel resonance discrimination with in this case, by the trans community members, or gay male community.

You could say water is wet, or gravity will make this pencil fall, and they may reject the message,

no matter how good, or easy, or useful, unless they perceive it comes from a channel and source that resonates with them, and that they trust as resonant with themselves, and their tribe, and community.

And that is what is really at stake.

For almost everybody else, not only is it a non-issue, it may be bad, and produce more negative outcomes.

For a very, very, small minority, if information is not sent on a homophilic (this term has nothing to do with homosexuality and is something different) and resonating channel, it is may be likely to be rejected.

And that is more nuanced, and more vexing of a problem to address, and easier to address, in other ways.

In particular, because one possible answer to providing a more resonant channel for the gay male, and trans community, CSE,
also seems, by the evidence, to possibly result, in more teens becoming sexually active earlier,
may result in more teen STD transmissions,
and seems to result in more teens getting pregnant,
even if it does not result in more teen moms,
because more teen abortions occur.

But CSE also teaches pregnancy and STI prevention.

So they are still looking at sti and pregnancy prevention by looking at CSE.
And no. Watch the for dummies video regarding what their motivations are.

Early introduction of sexual topics, and sexualization,
may (may is a social courtesy, and the opposite of what I really mean as a mathematician)
benefit some parts of the demographic, and harm others.
It may benefit a very small percentage of the population,
and harm a much larger percentage of the population.
Be careful what you normalize,
because you may be served,
what you order.
And not just with the percentage of the population that masturbate each other,
but also with the percentage of the population that can, and does get pregnant,
Or all the population that make excellent hosts, carriers, and transmitters of STDs.
Look @BrevardFighter, I made a FUD argument.
It’s all right when I do it, though.
Because we have history of 12 or 13 ages of consent before,
(and sadly, younger)
and we have histories of pregnancies of 11, 12, or 13 before,
and we have STDS that only evolved and are still present
because of buggery.
And it is true, very young people can bugger,
But we either need to lower the age of consent,
or keep it raised,
because we think it might be better,
for people below that age, to not bugger.
I think it might be, we could try and encourage the young people,
not to bugger before certain ages,
and not allow adults to bugger them,
before certain ages.
That is certainly my BIAS.

This view of mine, is not congruent with CSE theories or practices,

but is congruent with abstinence plus practices,

is evidence based, based on the data, and studies,

And in my experience, to be brave enough to be anecdotal,

to tell a teen, or encouraging a teen to suffer not getting laid,

yields it own kind of intangible fruit.

As does, encouraging them to use a condom,

and making sure condoms are available to them,

if they must insist, or fall accidentally, into scenarios, where they do get laid,

as is so often the case.

And when we speak of the Middle Road,

we acknowledge that even if we fail to edify the ideologies

of the extreme progressives, or the extreme conservatives,

in teens, those hungry, intelligent, and perceptive minds,

And biological collections, of raging hormone systems,

That despite the vanities, and arrogances, of the extreme

Extreme Progressives, and Extreme Conservatices,

There is usually a middle road,

that is not only very useful, but also very practical,

and despite their tendencies to discourage what they perceive to be blasphemies or heresies, aside

there are often better options, that just run, when they are allowed to,

along the path of least mathematical and physical resistance, like water, without the bullshit,

And often create great natural wonders, benefits, and even sculptures crafted by invisible hands that are finer or more breath taking, than less primordial art.

These middle roads, can and do, include heretical combinations that progressives espouse or deny,

and that conservatives espouse, or deny,

or that are undreamt of in, in either of their pale and stale philosophies.

But that nonetheless exist, and provide great utility, in practical space,

And in the isolated wilderness,

Where trees fall all the time,

regardless of whether there are large groups of people to agree with themselves,

whether a tree has fallen or not,

and whether or not they are joining the tree fell,

or the tree did not fall,


No man is an Island.

But we are all participants in the empty spaces,

Where trees may fall, with or without audiences,

And we must decide, what it means,

and what we will do about it, or not.

And that means for us, in the non-empty spaces,

that are crowded.

We still must use our minds,

And make decisions.

1 Like

As for me, all poems, aside,

I have no problems telling people below the age of consent,

to put a pin in it,

and consider all of the other activities available to them,

instead of sex.

I have no reason to think that a few extra years of celibacy won’t do anything,

but make their brain better,

in particular if their brains are directed to STEM learning,

and their bodies are redirected towards useful work, that exhausts their bodies, and minds, sufficiently.

Even considering, that hormones may be very small,

and Titans are still Titans, especially whether they are very big, or very small.

I was thinking about this. And as an example if we used pregnancy or STD prevention as an outcome for early sex ed. Then we wouldn’t get a result at all.

This is the other point. I think lots of kids are having sex young. That eva video mentioned a number like 50% but whatever it is isn’t the point right now.

I don’t believe that is due to sex education of any sort at any age. And more about society at large.

So trying to make sex ed responsible for childhood sex seems a bit ambitious with all the other influences going on.

But being able to handle that issue at a young age becomes more important. If a child gets a STD or gets pregnant or even gets raped or whatever. They should have the tools to deal with that.

That was harder to find a link to than I though.


Its Australia but kind of goes with the idea that lots of kids are having sex.

Scientifically rigorous studies would, as they follow the outcomes past the early age.

I addressed this in my earlier posts, about the 9 studies, Goldfarb misrepresented to support her claim about early age sex ed.

Only 2 of the 3 studies were about early age programs, out of the 9 studies that she cited for that claim, tracked outcomes past the early age.

And those 2 studies were not about sex ed, they were about child sex abuse prevention and reporting programs.

And only 1 of the 9 studies was about an early age sex ed program, which I noted was not scientifically rigorous, and did not track effect or outcome after the early ages.

Interesting, according to the survey link you posted,

Less than 4% of Australian teenagers reported they were gay or bi.

And that survey claimed that boys were more likely than girls to deliberately watch porn response was interesting,

as counter intuitively, the real online porn viewership numbers reveal that women watch more online porn than men do.

Not self-reported survey numbers, which are prone to all the problems survey instruments and respondents lying on the surveys have.

But the electronic tracking numbers, where they note which accounts are logged in, and from which devices, etc while the online porn is watched.

So, maybe porn viewership by sex type, switches after teens become adults, or maybe the survey respondents lied, or maybe Australia online porn watchers are an anomaly (although I doubt that last)…

1 Like