No he did not think he was "paying" for sex, openly or surreptitiously, that is what clients do who use brothels.

Are you saying that men only buy women drinks because they expect to get sex in return?

No. Are you saying that if a man who was attracted to you bought you a couple of drinks, as part of polite socialising, you would automatically think there was an ulterior motive? Why are you so apparently that distrustful of men?

and if a woman accepts a drink from a man she is making a verbal contract to have sex?

I think you are reading far to much between the lines into that.

I shall never accept a drink from a man again. I had no idea what I was agreeing to.

That is a bit of an over reaction.

I'm a feminist. Deal with it.

I am, always have done. But you don't always have it your own way.

So she was asking for it was she?

If you mean a slap, then no, that is never ever acceptable. She gave my mate a very clear come on that if he played his cards right, then there was a good enough reason to expect some "extra curricular activity" when the pub closed. The truth was she was just out for an evenings free drinks, and in his view he got stitched up. And yes he did. But if he had called his hand a bit earlier on, he would have realised what the the score was and saved himself and me some money.

So he thought he was paying for sex? I don't understand the point you are making here. Are you saying that men only buy women drinks because they expect to get sex in return? and if a woman accepts a drink from a man she is making a verbal contract to have sex? This seems very odd to me. I shall never accept a drink from a man again. I had no idea what I was agreeing to.

---

Reality Internet Personality

So she was asking for it was she?

If you mean a slap, then no, that is never ever acceptable. She gave my mate a very clear come on that if he played his cards right, then there was a good enough reason to expect some "extra curricular activity" when the pub closed. The truth was she was just out for an evenings free drinks, and in his view he got stitched up. And yes he did. But if he had called his hand a bit earlier on, he would have realised what the the score was and saved himself and me some money.

OK, I did some digging and the US has improved teacher requirements since about 1980. Most states now require a bachelor degree, but the "alternative teacher certification" route still exists.

From wikipedia: "Alternatively certified teachers typically possess a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university and are completing (or have completed) an alternative certification program while teaching full-time. Other state certification requirements, such as the type of education coursework or the length of practice teaching, may be modified or waived. In the United States, alternative certification is offered in forty-eight states and the District of Columbia."

Note the words "typically", and "may be modified or waived". I know personally grade school teachers in the US, younger than me, who don't have a bachelor's degree. In Canada a teacher needs the following before being certified:

-at least a bachelor's degree in the field they will be teaching in
-at least one year university level work in teaching (this is after the basic B.Sc. or B.A.)
-to pass a written and practical test

I wouldn't consider dollars spent per student as the only way to compare various school systems. Thing like land costs and teacher's wages vary considerably from country to country. Take a look at the 2006 world rankings at http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html , which show the US in 27th place in student performance in math (just one example). Countries ahead of the US on the list are the ones stealing our jobs and economy right now: Korea, Japan, most of western Europe,and several emerging eastern European countries.

You also need to look at variations in educational quality within the US. Take a look at http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html and you will see the spending per student ranges from $19,076 in New York state to $6,200 in Utah. Are these students receiving the same quality of education?

I don't want to just pick on the US here. Some of the same trends are appearing elsewhere. Here in Canada, governments are quick to cut school spending (or at least not keep spending in line with inflation) in order to cut taxes and buy votes. This has been going on long enough to cause major shifts in our higher education student populations. Take a look at the students in any post grad program in a Canadian university and you will see a very large number or foreign students. This is partly due to them being the only ones willing to do the low paid long hours in such a program, and partly due to them being the only one qualified any more. Those degrees in film history and gender studies that the Canadians are getting lead to a very limited number of grad school positions, although they are relatively cheap.

Which brings me back (finally) to the topic of this thread. If the end of civilization is nigh, a big cause of it will be our modern trend of selling our future for short term gains for a small (but powerful) part of the population. If you listen to political discussion in Canada today, an amazing number of people are telling me that is just and proper to decrease the quality of life of a majority of people today and in the future so a small percentage of the population can put a second Mercedes in their driveway.

And finally, I didn't mean to say that MajorKong was a christian fundamentalist, but like so many North Americans you appear to carry the baggage of a Christian style upbringing. Things like objecting to sex education in public schools, plus denying evolution and climate change, all in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, can all be traced to a christian style upbringing, whether that included going to church or not. We may have to add that to the list of causes of the end of civilization.

---

I can still remember at a party in my 20's getting totally besotted with a girl, and I was hovering around her all night, trying to fend off the competition for her favours, had a couple of dances, and at the close of the evening I offered her a lift home. But she gave me a peck on the cheek and said look, you're a very nice guy, I really like you, but I just don't fancy you in that way OK? My dad is going to pick me up in a few minutes. I escorted her out to her dads car, and that was that.

Cross no, angry no, disappointed yes of of course, I really fancied her, but it wasn't to be. You win some, you lose some. Yes of course some women resort to being Lesbian or married to protect themselves, but that can backfire. Women have been hit on in the Ladies loo by other women for declaring that. And there are some men that really get off on married women rather than single ones, as they see it as the ultimate test of their manhood and pulling power.

What many men get really upset about is when they make their intentions pretty clear to a woman, then get taken for a ride and rebuffed at the last moment. I remember a mate of mine in the early 70's hooking up with a girl down the pub, who pretty much gave him a strong come on. The in drink of the girls at the time was a Brandy and Babycham mixed, which was pretty potent and also not cheap. To the extent that at one point he borrowed a fiver of me to keep buying them.

Come closing time she said to him thanks very much for the evening bye bye. He got out of his pram and was going to give her a slap before me and a couple of others grabbed him, and told her to hop it. It was found out later that she was a known PT working her way around the local pubs.

So she was asking for it was she?

I've been on the receiving end of torrents of abuse for turning men down enough times to be wary. If it happens one time out of ten then that's enough to make you anxious about when its going to happen again. It's happened to my friends. Its clearly happened to enough women that women claiming to be a lesbian to let a man down with out bruising his ego (and thus risking his ire) is common enough to be a joke.

I am sorry if some people here are offended by the reality. Perhaps rather than being offended about something that is true, people should be thinking about how they raise their sons and men should be thinking about the examples they set.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Stand down a bit, ES, uhhm, pretty please?

No, not all of US are abusive. The male sex drive and ego has had much written about it. Most of civilization as we know it exists because of said drive.
Not all of it good, I shall admit.

Heh, I suppose you didn't intend too, but do you realize how sexist this claim is? You just literally blacked out thousands of years of female contribution to the construction of society in one simple sentence. Check your privilege.

granted a while to pester you all yet.

Oh I expect that could happen.

Luv the new sig :-)

Thanks.
I fully expect to outlive your expectations...
Much to your chagrin, I suspect.
You may rue the day you said that.///
LOL.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

Not really, most of the women I approached in my younger days claimed to be lesbians. The only confusion I felt was why were there so many lesbians about. :)

T.A.

It sounds funny, but the reality behind that is quite sad. Do you know why women often lie and claim they are a lesbian or married rather than simply tell the truth that they aren't interested?

Because enough times when we turn a man down they can get frighteningly abusive. We are scared to tell you the truth. So your post makes me sad. :(

Its not all men, but it happens enough times to make us scared when a man propositions us and we have to let them down.

Stand down a bit, ES, uhhm, pretty please?

No, not all of US are abusive. The male sex drive and ego has had much written about it. Most of civilization as we know it exists because of said drive.
Not all of it good, I shall admit.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

granted a while to pester you all yet.

Oh I expect that could happen.

Luv the new sig :-)

I have met a few friends in my life.
Most were cats.

How can any one top that.

Mark, that simply has to be engraved upon your epitaph, and hopefully not for many years to come yet.

LOL...yes, I am not afraid of my trip up yonder.
But, I pray every night that I shall be granted a while to pester you all yet.

I don't remember where I picked that up.
Might have been a Twain quote. Perhaps not.

But it fits.

The other bit would be.....
I never met a cat I didn't like.
I think I had that poked in my sig at one time or another.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

I can still remember at a party in my 20's getting totally besotted with a girl, and I was hovering around her all night, trying to fend off the competition for her favours, had a couple of dances, and at the close of the evening I offered her a lift home. But she gave me a peck on the cheek and said look, you're a very nice guy, I really like you, but I just don't fancy you in that way OK? My dad is going to pick me up in a few minutes. I escorted her out to her dads car, and that was that.

Cross no, angry no, disappointed yes of of course, I really fancied her, but it wasn't to be. You win some, you lose some. Yes of course some women resort to being Lesbian or married to protect themselves, but that can backfire. Women have been hit on in the Ladies loo by other women for declaring that. And there are some men that really get off on married women rather than single ones, as they see it as the ultimate test of their manhood and pulling power.

What many men get really upset about is when they make their intentions pretty clear to a woman, then get taken for a ride and rebuffed at the last moment. I remember a mate of mine in the early 70's hooking up with a girl down the pub, who pretty much gave him a strong come on. The in drink of the girls at the time was a Brandy and Babycham mixed, which was pretty potent and also not cheap. To the extent that at one point he borrowed a fiver of me to keep buying them.

Come closing time she said to him thanks very much for the evening bye bye. He got out of his pram and was going to give her a slap before me and a couple of others grabbed him, and told her to hop it. It was found out later that she was a known PT working her way around the local pubs.

Not really, most of the women I approached in my younger days claimed to be lesbians. The only confusion I felt was why were there so many lesbians about. :)

T.A.

It sounds funny, but the reality behind that is quite sad. Do you know why women often lie and claim they are a lesbian or married rather than simply tell the truth that they aren't interested?

Because enough times when we turn a man down they can get frighteningly abusive. We are scared to tell you the truth. So your post makes me sad. :(

Its not all men, but it happens enough times to make us scared when a man propositions us and we have to let them down.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I'm having trouble understanding MajorKong's point. He complains about the quality of US education, then falls back on fundamental Christian "abstinence". We've all seen how well that worked for the Roman Catholic clergy. If the RC Church can't motivate priests to keep their pants on, do you really expect parents to be able to motivate healthy teenage boys? A few hundred thousand years of evolution says otherwise.

Maybe I'm old and cynical, but I think MajorKong is really expressing his dislike of the current US education system by following his preacher's line on sex education. I have to agree with him about their education system (assuming that is his point). It may not be the end of ALL civilization, but I think history will show the downfall of the US civilization was largely the result of their illogical refusal to fund public education, or set minimum performance standards for the system.

Our UK readers may not know that in many US States the only requirements to teach the lower grades are a high school diploma (roughly equivalent to your O standards) and passing an interview.

First, do not presume that I am advocating abstinence due to being a 'fundamentalist christian'. I am not a 'fundamentalist christian'. My religious beliefs do not enter into it. STDs are a public health issue.

It is not my 'preachers line' on sex education that I am following. I walked out of church over 30 years ago (and haven't been back) over... well... differences I had with parts of their doctrine, where some of their money was being spent, and a few other issues involving church governance (but that is neither here nor there).

I do not object to a comprehensive sex education program in schools. However, my definition of what that is does not match with that of many other people. What I do object to is teaching the kids that condom use is something of a magic cure for all the problems that sex brings. They are not.

There has been much argument in this thread about 'condom failure rates'. I think the differences are due to different standards of what 'failure' is. Those arguing for a low failure rate (I've seen the figure of 2% frequently mentioned) I think are arguing that pregnancy = failure. That is to say that the condom fails if and only if the woman gets pregnant. This is not my position.

Not every sexual encounter will result in pregnancy, even with no condoms or other birth control. It depends greatly on... shall we say... the time of the month. My definition of condom failure is 'allows some level of bodily-fluid transfer'. The higher failure figures (12% to 18%) are more appropriate for this standard.

There are many reasons for condom failure. Manufacturing defects. Storage conditions. Errors in opening the package. Errors in putting the condom on. As another poster has mentioned, "The Heat of The Moment", as it were.

Yes, teenage pregnancy can be quite a challenge to overcome for the kids involved. One can make the case that it will 'ruin your life'.

But STDs... They can do a bit more than just 'ruin your life'. They can end it... in slow, painful ways.

Do not presume or assume that just because I say abstinence is best (even Es99 has agreed on this much, and she and I RARELY agree on much of anything) that I am out 'Bible Thumping'. I am not. I have a problem with most public-school sex education programs that I have seen. Way too many of them claim 'condoms are the answer!'. They are not. Condoms may help some, but they do NOT fix the problems. Like most all things the schools do (except for 'Football', of course) they just half-a... uhh... don't do a very good job of it.

I have a BIG problem with schools distributing 'free condoms' to the students. I know that many here disagree with me on this point, but I do remember being a teenager and how rough it was. Giving out 'free condoms' to the students after filling their heads with 'condoms will prevent the risks' is equivalent to the schools commanding the students to 'go forth and copulate'.

I am a parent. My oldest (he is almost 6) is beginning to ask some of *those* questions. I answer as correctly as I can, given his emotional maturity and his knowledge level. It isn't easy, but it is still my responsibility. I am going to be rather resentful if the school doesn't go far enough with what it teaches him and contradicts what I am teaching him on the subject.

I regret mentioning condoms as part of my condemnation of the US school systems. It has way sidetracked the subject of this thread.

largely the result of their illogical refusal to fund public education

This turns out not to be the case. Per student expenditures (in constant dollars) have consistently risen. They went up about 20% between 1999 and 2010.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — which groups the world's most developed countries — writes in its annual report that brand-new and experienced teachers alike in the United States out-earn most of their counterparts around the globe. But U.S. salaries have not risen at the same pace as other nations.

The findings, part of a 440-page tome of statistics, put the United States' spending on its young people in context.

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/


You said:

or set minimum performance standards for the system.

This turns out to be WAY more difficult than you might believe.

The public school educational system in the USA is regulated by the national (and state) teacher's unions. These unions (NEA and others on the Federal level, equivalents on the state level) are HIGHLY resistant to setting performance standards for the teachers. They fear (and quite rightly so) that strict standards of performance on teachers would lead to large numbers of teachers getting fired, so what standards there are get watered down to the point of being useless.

Whenever the US Congress (or state legislatures) gets involved, such as in the case of the "No Child Left Behind" law that Bush the Younger signed, it usually just ends up making things worse.

Part of NCLB, for instance, mandated frequent standardized tests for the students. But instead of using these tests to monitor just the students' progress on learning the material, NCLB mandated that the tests be used to monitor Teacher and School performance. So, the teachers and school districts decided to start "teaching the test" instead of teaching the material in a well rounded manner that might lead the students to actually understanding it. Nope, NCLB made things worse in the name of making things better. Typical.

Then you said:

in many US States the only requirements to teach the lower grades are a high school diploma

I would sure like to know your source for this. It is not the case in Texas for actual classroom teachers. Step 1 to being certified as a teacher in Texas is getting a BA or BS degree (or higher) from an accredited college or university. Without that, you won't even be considered.

Now then, that said, some School districts in Texas will hire substitute teachers with only a HS Diploma, but they are just substitutes... Glorified baby sitters for when the actual classroom teacher is, for instance, out sick. But even then, most school districts in Texas require some college/university work to be considered for a substitute teaching position. I have very frequently heard '60+ hours of credit' (that is 2 years work with a full load each semester).

I have met a few friends in my life.
Most were cats.

How can any one top that.

Mark, that simply has to be engraved upon your epitaph, and hopefully not for many years to come yet.

Lastly - Teaching standards - Everybody in teaching in the UK whether with under 16's or FE, have to have a teacher training qualification at degree or higher level, and also have to be qualified in their subject preferably at a level above the one that they are teaching.

Not strictly true. Only teachers qualified since 1976, I think, about that time anyway, have had a "degree" level teaching qualification. Bit of a cheat actually, they just said, with a few slight changes, that the old teaching cert course was degree standard and the previous 4 year degree was now a masters.

They also insist now that teachers of GCSE have degree in subject. But that's not true either, in the sciences you need a science degree. But Ess is the exception, try finding teachers with a Physics degree, in most state schools. One of the reasons in most State schools that they do the general science course and not the separate Physics, Biology and Chemistry courses.

I have met a few friends in my life.
Most were cats.

Mega Like:)

T.A.

Oh...double condoms on you all...LOL.
And Explain the cat..............

This soundtrack still just haunts me.

I don't thing about Tang much.

I think about kitties all the time.

I think about Dave Van Ronk all the time.

I have had enough time to ponder.
The movie was not all that great. But I find myself wondering what I might have done back then. What would I have become if not this? There was not much of an internet back then. Where would I have gone for friends?

I did travel a bit back then, 's how I met JJ.
And Suzi Q.
That was a time in my life I would not trade for life itself.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

Your comment implied that the woman would sleep with all the men as if just because there is one women all the men would automatically have the right to sleep with her. Its almost as if she didn't have a choice in the matter. I am absolutely positive that women don't sleep with a man just because he exists, although a fair number of men seem to think that this is the way it should be.

So just because there are 10 men and one women it doesn't mean that the women will sleep with all 10 men however much they might expect her to. I am sorry you think that is the way things are....

Come on Es. You are letting your own prejudices colour your views. There *are* women who have sex with multiple partners, and we probably all know of women (non "professionals") who have slept with 10 or more men in a week.

You *really* need to recognise the difference between statistical probability and sexism. Afterall, a woman only needs to bonk one man once, without having multiple partners, in order to get pregnant and if a woman finds all 10 men attractive enough to bonk, she will.

It has nothing to do with the expectations of the men.

You must find it confusing when women turn you down.

Not really, most of the women I approached in my younger days claimed to be lesbians. The only confusion I felt was why were there so many lesbians about. :)

T.A.

There seems to be four separate issues going on here.

Firstly - Sex ed - I think it is the parents responsibility to have the initial father/son and mother/daughter talk. But as the average parent wont have that much clinical knowledge, it's then down to the schools to supplement that with more detailed information. One problem is that in a lot of schools taking the sex ed class is picking the short straw, they just pay lip service to it and get it over with as soon as possible.

Secondly - Teenagers - All teenagers will try sex, they always have done and always will do. They hear and read about it, and these days see it on the internet, so of course they want to try it for themselves. And these days it is occurring earlier and earlier when they are not emotionally mature enough to deal with it, even though their bodies may be.

Thirdly - Safe sex - Condoms prevent most of STD's as well as unwanted pregnancies, but lets be realistic here. When a couple are in a session that gets down to the nitty gritty stage, it's not exactly conducive to the proceedings to stop, fumble around, deploy a condom, then take up where you left off. That is why the world was grateful for the coil and other IUD's, and of course the pill. But there are disadvantages, they do not stop the spread of STD's. Further, it is a fact that in the early years of menstruation, a young girl can experience quite unpleasant dysmenorrhoea until her reproductive system settles down.

The usual remedy is to prescribe a low strength dosage of the pill which has been shown to help. But of course every 11 year old in the country knows that the doctor has to take their word for it if they say they have period pains, even if they haven't, and due to patient confidentiality, their parents can't be told. Its the standard way for young girls to start experimenting with sex behind their parents backs, and has been for over 30 years. I think the law should be changed so that parents or a Legal Guardian, have to be consulted about putting a girl under the age of consent, currently 16, on the pill.

Lastly - Teaching standards - Everybody in teaching in the UK whether with under 16's or FE, have to have a teacher training qualification at degree or higher level, and also have to be qualified in their subject preferably at a level above the one that they are teaching. Even as a part time FE teacher, I had to take a Diploma in teaching IT, equivalent to a first level degree, and I also took the first year of the PGCE a post grad qualification. In addition I had to get Microsoft Expert and other technical certificates up to NVQ/ITQ level 3, and became an MBCS. If it is being said that in some places you can teach with just O levels, that is simply monstrous.

P.s. Oh yes and don't forget that the majority of men still see it as the woman's responsibility not to get pregnant, not theirs. There was an advertising campaign once with a picture of a "pregnant" man that said "would you be more careful if it was you that got pregnant?", but everyone complained about it.

The end of this civilization may be nigh but another will rise up out of the ashes. It's happened before and it will happen again.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.