# Should Sex Ed be reformed?



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 16, 2009)

I was reading the paper today and a 16 yr old was asking a Sex columnist about how her boyfriend does not want to use a condom and she does not want to use the pill and what they can do.

The Sex columnist spoke about how people say abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy. The Sex columnist then listed other possible ways to be sexual intimate such as mutual masterbation ,using devices(toys) anal sex and oral sex and so on. 

Do you think schools or parents in discussing Sex Ed should discuss these alternatives along with abstinence or do you think abstinence alone is enough?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 16, 2009)

i would say that sex ed should be changed.

they should take the girls to the welfare office and show them the women with 5 kids from 5 men, who cant hold down jobs and SUFFER for being sexually STUPID about birth control

They should take the boys to talk to men who are forced to live in abject poverty because of crippling child support payments. all because they didnt want to wear a condom.

They should sit the little people down and tell them "you may think he i cute now, in 10 years you wont even want to admit that you went out with him"

make them do ride alongs with the police so they can see crack whores.

find a way to ake them see that real life isnt like friends, where you can sleep with anyone, a new one everywee and there are never consequences.

show them the numbers on herpes, and HPV

then remind them that NOT screwing is the only way to avoid all that.

simple really


----------



## tellner (May 16, 2009)

Abstinence-only sex education is stupid. That's all there is to it. Encouraging kids to wait? Certainly. But the Cult of Virginity has lead to higher rates of STDs, higher rates of early pregnancy and higher divorce rates. It's based on the idiotic notion that telling children lies will make them wiser and that the girls - the rules are different for boys - can turn off their sexuality until it's time to sell it to the highest bidder.

Whoopi Goldberg said it best "You can't stop kids from ****ing. It feels good." 

What you can do is give them good information so that they can make rational choices and encourage them to be responsible. And yes, that means that if they are aware enough to realize that they aren't going to be responsible about "Tab A, Slot B" intercourse they should consider alternatives.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 16, 2009)

tellner said:


> Whoopi Goldberg said it best "You can't stop kids from ****ing. It feels good."



Some parents manage to stop their children from lying, swearing, stealing, behaving badly, smoking, taking drugs, and any number of other things that may well 'feel good' to some of them.

But when it comes to sex, parents cannot teach their children not to do it until they reach a certain age or maturity level?

That seems odd.  Has anyone told Whoopi about this?


----------



## Flea (May 16, 2009)

Heh ... I don't remember what it's called, but there's a novel by Anthony Burgess where the government responded to a severe overpopulation problem with a new PR campaign.

It's Sapiens to be Homo!  :lol:   Maybe that's the answer to teen pregnancy.

Seriously though, there are some great programs out there.  I've long been impressed by a sex ed curriculum developed by the Unitarian Universalist denomination:

http://www.uua.org/religiouseducation/curricula/ourwhole/

There are sections geared from kindergarten (basic anatomy and assertiveness skills if someone makes you feel uncomfortable) to senior citizens.  I haven't been a churchgoer for a while, but I'd love to take the adult segment myself.

Abstinence education is a bad case of wishful thinking.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 16, 2009)

Flea said:


> Abstinence education is a bad case of wishful thinking.



Should we teach children it is OK to cross the street without mommy or daddy, because they're going to do it anyway?  Or may we continue to insist that they abstain from crossing the street by themselves?

Abstinence is not a dirty word, and it is entirely acceptable for a parent to absolutely deny a course of action to a child.  *DO NOT DO THIS.*  Plain, simple, easily understandable, and within a parent's purview.

We insist that our children not snitch cookies from the cookie jar, we expect them to obey us, but when it comes to sex, whoops, guess they're going to do whatever they want to do!

If it was a tattoo on their face instead of sex, you'd feel you have a right to say something, a right to stop your juvenile child from doing something very stupid that they'll regret later.  But when it comes to sex?  Nope, can't control them.

Sorry, not buying it.


----------



## shesulsa (May 16, 2009)

Parents have been "controlling" their children's sex lives since there have been parents and children ... and it's working out great so far, right?  WRONG!

You'd be surprised as hell at the "education" our kids are getting about sex and pregnancy prevention such as it is.

I'm a person who feels an educated, informed opinion carries more responsibility and blame than an uneducated one.  Talk to your kids about ALL the icky, gooey, embarrassing stuff.  They'll finger it out on their own anyway.


----------



## arnisador (May 16, 2009)

Abstinence education has been conclusively shown not to work. Hence, presenting alternatives isn't a bad idea.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 16, 2009)

I support abstinence. I practiced it prior to marriage. I have both spiritual and secular reasons for supporting abstinence. I think promiscuous sex is both physically dangerous and emotionally destructive.

All that being said, I don't understand the resistance to giving children a _full _education about sexuality. I don't think it should be done by the government, I think it is the responsibility of parents to provide for their children's education, but why are people so against any education beyond, "keep your knees together?"

I've always felt that people can make the _best_ decision when they have a _full_ grasp of the factors involved. If we simply want to scare our children into what we believe to be appropriate behavior, then there might be an argument for an incomplete education. But if we want our children to make informed, rational decisions in their lives, we have a responsibility to provide them with all the facts which might affect that decision.

I think many, though admittedly not all, of the "abstinence only" advocates are basing their position purely on their religion. They are ret-conning their arguments to fit their religious beliefs. That's their prerogative, but they should not be pushing that position on others. If you want your children to grow up to be rational adults who make informed decisions in their own best interest, you can't begin their education by using scare tactics and limited debate to force your own opinion on them.

Now, that being said, parents have at least some limited right to dictate to their children which behaviors are acceptable and which are proscribed. If you want to tell you kids, "no sex before marriage. Cause I said so!" Then by all means, feel free. But I would prefer to tell my kids that sex is a dangerous and wonderful activity which can be either a positive or negative part of their lives, and that it is their responsibility to make the decisions which will determine how it affects them. And I don't want the government or anyone else doing that for me without my permission.

So, I support extra-marital abstinence. And I support encouraging that. But I also support young people learning about methods of birth control, and STDs, and how sexual activity affects the brain, and how their parents view sexual activity from their own spiritual perspective, and how sexual activity can affect a relationship, and pregnancy, and how sexual promiscuity at a young age can affect their education, and their financial future. I also think that rape prevention and self defense should be a part of sexual education.

I think this all needs to be done in an age appropriate fashion of course. I wouldn't teach five year olds about anal sex. But I might teach them about stranger danger, and that no one has the right to touch the parts of their bodies under their clothes. 

Because I want them to know _all_ the issues involved. Not because I give up on them making the right decision, but because that way they are _best_ _equipped_ to make the right decision.


-Rob


----------



## shesulsa (May 17, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Abstinence education has been conclusively shown not to work. Hence, presenting alternatives isn't a bad idea.



Logical.  :spock:


----------



## Flea (May 17, 2009)

> I've always felt that people can make the _best_ decision when they have a _full_ grasp of the factors involved. If we simply want to scare our children into what we believe to be appropriate behavior, then there might be an argument for an incomplete education. But if we want our children to make informed, rational decisions in their lives, we have a responsibility to provide them with all the facts which might affect that decision.



Thesemindz,  it sounds like you're in the same camp as the rest of us.    I don't think anyone here is bashing abstinence, just abstinence-_only _education.  And for the record, I feel that abstinence is a perfectly valid choice for anyone regardless of their stage in life.  There are many excellent reasons to make that choice, all deeply personal and best left between the individual and their Creator.  Like most other major decisions in life.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2009)

It's not in my camp.  I would be a bit upset, as a parent, to discover that little Jimmy had been taught in a mandatory sex-ed class at school that if he can't keep his phallum bway-bway tucked away, it's OK to get some condoms and live it up.

It seems odd to me that as a parent, I could tell little Jimmy that God exists, Jesus saves, and etc - and the school won't tell Jimmy that daddy is a liar.  But if I tell Jimmy that he is not allowed to engage in sexual intercourse, the school can override my teachings and tell little Jimmy that it's OK to get some condoms and get bizzy.

I am not a parent.  Probably a good thing.  Because this would bother me lots.  Sexual education is not reading, not writing, not the arts, it is none of the things that are the mandate of a public school.  If I were a parent, I would want to be the only authority speaking to my child on that subject.  

I really don't see it as the purview of the Board of Education to determine what my child believes from the point of view of sexual education.  I don't want public schools to teach religion, and I don't want them to teach sexual behavior and what is right, wrong, or permissible in society to children.

It usurps the role of the parent in a way I see as improper.  Much like many of you would probably see it if we were talking about teaching a state religion in class against your will.


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

Quite frankly only in America could you have this sort of sex education!
Firstly you are talking about two difference subjects here, the first is the biolologial process, how to deal with it and the various ways of using family planning etc. The second subject is morality.
In the Netherlands the first subject is taught by schools, the second by parents....they have the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in the world plus the highest age that teenagers lose their virginity around 18.
The attitudes towards young people that seem to come across from America is that they are dangerous animals who are set to explode at any moment, can't be trusted for one minute and are actually disliked by many.
The attitude toward sex, we've discussed before on here,come across as prudish and Victorian. Sex is used to sell products, is seen on screens as a product in itself and the religious people scream constantly how dirty and dangerous it is.
It's not dirty, it's not dangerous in itself merely a normal function of human beings however lack of knowledge of this function is very dangerous. 
If you talk to your children, if you explain everything to them as Shesulsa posts, if you treat it as you would every other subject, the children will respond. It's not absinence teaching, it's not teaching them to use alternatives, it's teaching them to think for themselves, to make decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Thats what you are aiming for isn't it...bringing up your children to be well rounded responsible independent adults?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> It's not absinence teaching, it's not teaching them to use alternatives, it's teaching them to think for themselves, to make decisions and the consequences of those decisions.



But that gets back to the issue of 'morality' as you said (well said, by the way).  If a parent sees 'abstinence' as 'moral' and wants that to be what their child learns, then what?  That is wrong and not to be permitted because?

I hate to use emotional buzzwords in discussions like this, and I mean no harm, but can't think of a better way to say it - it is a purely liberal political viewpoint to believe that parents ought to be compelled (or schools) to teach children to 'think for themselves,' instead of teaching them not to engage in sexual activity.  You grant the role of teaching morality to the parent, but then you strip it away from parents who would teach morals YOU don't approve of.



> Thats what you are aiming for isn't it...bringing up your children to be well rounded responsible independent adults?



No, that's what liberals want parents to aim for.   Parents may wish to raise children who respect their parents and obey them.  That is seen by liberal as unacceptable, unreasonable, and freakish.  It's sad.

But if parents are allowed to teach their children as they see fit, regarding sexual behavior (abstinence), that should take care of the 'responsible' part, and the schools, if they do their job and teach real education and not what tab A can fit into besides slot B, will take care of the 'well rounded' bit.

Liberals typically assume that everyone wants what they want - a child who is 'well rounded' and exposed to all concepts and ideas - including such things as the relative OKness of all sexual behaviors.  But all parents do not want what liberals want.  Some actually believe some forms of sexual behavior are wrong and not only don't want their children to be taught about them, but don't want their children to be told they're OK by the authority of the public school system.

I do not insist that public schools teach that homosexuality is wrong - I don't think that my beliefs trump those of parents who find it OK.  But I am not granted the same consideration in return.  Same for abstinence - I do not insist that schools teach abstinence, because I know it's a personal, family, moral issue and not fit for public school teaching.  Again, I do not see the same consideration being granted in return.

What I see is a wholesale usurpation of the rights of parents by the state, which appears to be insistent upon teaching the 'right' and 'wrong' of sexual behavior.  I was against it when the Bush Administration wanted 'abstinence' taught in schools, and I'm against the opposite.  Neither belongs in the public school curriculum, IMHO.


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

Yep, that'll be me the liberal enemy of all right thinkig people. I'm the one with two children a lad in his thirties and a girl who's 24 next month who have both managed not to procreate carelessly, yeah what would I know.
Why the hell do you want your children when they are in their thirties etc still obeying you?
*Oh and by the way you missed the point totally of my post!!*

Give your children as much knowledge as you can about everything not just sex, teach them the consequences of underage sexual activity, underage or excessive drinking etc and you will find they will see the point of not having sex underage or randomly all by themselves.

My point is that teaching them the mechanics if you like of sex is vital, then you teach them what to do with those mechanics, don't go putting words in my mouth. I'm saying they should be taught what sex is, how its done and what you can do to prevent pregnancies and STDS as well as subjects such as infertility an academic subject, cold hard facts if you like no opinions. Parents are free them to teach their children hopefully by example, their morality.
Read my posts right please before you decide what they mean.


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

BTW the wish for children to grow up to be well rounded, independant and responsible ADULTS comes from my Orthodox Jewish background not any political wish to see them as some sort of hippie.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> *Oh and by the way you missed the point totally of my post!!*



I'm sorry if you think so, but I believe I got it.



> Give your children as much knowledge as you can about everything not just sex, teach them the consequences of underage sexual activity, underage or excessive drinking etc and you will find they will see the point of not having sex underage or randomly all by themselves.



But I don't want to do that.  Your assumption is (I repeat) appears to be that everyone wants to do that.  I don't.  And apparently, that's not OK.

That was my quip about liberal beliefs.  They begin with a premise - that they assume everyone wants to achieve.  Like _"We all want well-rounded children who know everything there is to know about sex, so here's how to go about that."_  The premise is flawed, we do NOT all want our children to learn everything there is to know about sex.  

That's usually the jaw-dropper in verbal discussions of this sort - liberals just gape in horror that conservatives think their children ought not be taught about, say, buggery, at a tender age by a public school teacher.  Since we don't agree with your premise, we naturally disagree with the proposed methods.



> My point is that teaching them the mechanics if you like of sex is vital, then you teach them what to do with those mechanics, don't go putting words in my mouth. I'm saying they should be taught what sex is, how its done and what you can do to prevent pregnancies and STDS as well as subjects such as infertility an academic subject, cold hard facts if you like no opinions. Parents are free them to teach their children hopefully by example, their morality.



I quite agree with that statement, and I'm sorry I didn't say it better, but I thought I had.

In the USA, 'sex ed' often consists of both the former (biology) and the latter (behavior) as well as given free condoms, encouragement to get out there and get bizzy, and pep-talks about how it is OK to want to have sex with one of the same sex or what-have-you and in fact, they ought to do it.  The 'behavior' part is the part that I believe usurps parent's rights.



> Read my posts right please before you decide what they mean.



I'm not sure what you mean by that.  I read your post, I believe I knew what it meant, and I responded to it.  How do I read your post the _"right"_ way?  I'm intelligent, if you'll grant me that much, so if I read your post and believe you said something you don't believe you said, perhaps the fault is not with my reading?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> BTW the wish for children to grow up to be well rounded, independant and responsible ADULTS comes from my Orthodox Jewish background not any political wish to see them as some sort of hippie.



Some parents believe that children will become adults and that they will then begin to make the decisions that will make them 'well-rounded' (whatever that is), independent, and responsible members of society.  But they also believe that these values are to be instilled by parents and not by society in the form of formal indoctrination into morals the state considers fair, just, and correct.

I have no problem with schools teaching about eggs, sperm, intercourse, and that's where babies come from.  That's all biology.  I object to them telling children that some sex acts my religion disapproves of are actually OK, or that they can have sex if they want to, no matter what parents tell them, and oh by the way, here's a bunch of free condoms.  Well-rounded?  Perhaps, if you mean the girls all end up with round heels.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But when it comes to sex, parents cannot teach their children not to do it until they reach a certain age or maturity level?


 
My only comment on this entire topic is about this.

A few years back the NYS Board of Regents decided that the earlier they taught sex ed the better and started teaching sex ed in 2nd or 3rd grade. After a whole lot of thought on how and what to teach they were ready and went out and gave it a try. In a demonstration on how to use a condom they used a banana to demo how to put it on. 

The response that came back from some of the children was&#8230;&#8221;so what do you do with the banana after sex&#8221;. You see they had absolutly no concept what-so-ever what sex was.

Yup the regents were WRONG again&#8230;.. And&#8230;. They figured out that was just a bit to young to start teaching sex Ed.

So apparently no one told the NYS Regents either


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sorry if you think so, but I believe I got it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I can imagine people would be surprised if you tell them you don't want your children knowing about sex and your children were in their twenties for example.
 I didn't say well rounded etc *children* I said *adults *and thats where you are missing the point and didn't read my post. I said this is the aim when bringing them up to be adults, to teach them how to make decisions and take responsiblity. You want them to be this way as adults.
I think you may be assuming I'm talking about young children, I'm not. In this country children can leave school at 16, they can be out working, living on their own and they can even join the army at this age so our aim has to be that these young adults have the life skills to be responsible citizens.


----------



## elder999 (May 17, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Do you think schools or parents in discussing Sex Ed should discuss these alternatives along with abstinence or do you think abstinence alone is enough?


 
I honestly think it should be both. It's no surprise what stupid things people choose to believe, and pass on to their kids.  Abstinence alone is a lofty goal, but it's a rare kid who's stronger than raging hormones-it's kind of like telling a kid that there's this  really powerful motorcycle _that he already "knows how" to ride_-doesn't need any "lessons" there, 'casue they're *hardwired*. The bike's sitting right over there, and _here are the keys, _in fact, you've had them for the last year or so, *and they're hardwired too*. Now, I'm going to go away, and _you shouldn't ride it_, and just to make sure you follow my advice, I'm going to keep the leathers and helmet that are needed for minimal safety.

"_Here's the keys, don't you ride that thing until *I* say you're ready_." Right. That'd work....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I can imagine people would be surprised if you tell them you don't want your children knowing about sex and your children were in their twenties for example.



People in their twenties may behave as children, but they are not.  I do not claim the right or responsibility to teach twenty-year-olds morals, nor would I expect them to be obliged to obey their parents.



> I didn't say well rounded etc *children* I said *adults *and thats where you are missing the point and didn't read my post. I said this is the aim when bringing them up to be adults, to teach them how to make decisions and take responsiblity. You want them to be this way as adults.



Yes, I do want them to be this way as adults.  Again, I read your post, and again, I am being quite honest in how I understood it.  Please do not call me a liar for simply being unable to read your mind.



> I think you may be assuming I'm talking about young children, I'm not. In this country children can leave school at 16, they can be out working, living on their own and they can even join the army at this age so our aim has to be that these young adults have the life skills to be responsible citizens.



And there you have it.  _"Our aim has to be."_  No, it does not.  "Our" means that _"we"_ have to impose our will on children against parental desires.  

If you mean _"my aim"_ instead of _"our aim,"_ please say so.  Otherwise, you are again telling us what all of our aims ought to be, parental desires aside.

I do not want any hypothetical child of mine to be necessarily taught the things that you want them taught with regard to sexual education.  I quite grasp that you find this shocking and wrong, but it is what it is.  I was quite right in reading your earlier statements as a blanket insistence that what YOU believe (or liberals believe, if you will) must be right, because it begins from a presumption that not everyone shares.

_"Our aim,"_ bollocks.  You aim for your children, I'll aim for mine.  Your desires as to what my children should be taught are not right when you give parents the right to teach morals to their children and then insist that 'we' ought not to permit that after all.


----------



## kaizasosei (May 17, 2009)

People seem to get really excited over nothing, different cultures in different ways.  Maybe the educational system does impose its will in many ways.  I would think that there are sadly many parents incapable of addressing the issue with their kids, so i would think that it's good to inform.  But as a parent i don't see really that big of a deal to informing another person of simple facts.

If the sexed should or not be reformed or not, i think i don't know enough on the matter, but if it should, maybe the op Tez3 should be in charge of that.




j


----------



## shesulsa (May 17, 2009)

Another good example of where idealism and reality must meet or ignorance abounds.

My ideal for my daughter is that she abstain until she's an adult woman, that as an adult woman she makes careful biological and moral choices and procreates healthy, normal children and lives a full, happy life.

Reality:  she's a teenager.  Need more really be said here?  I've been to the high school, I've seen the dark nooks and crannies which go unmonitored and are easily available.

The bottom line:  I want my daughter to have the RIGHT information - the medical facts and the moral fiber with which to ultimately make her own decision - because I can accept that this is exactly what she will ultimately do.  I think to expect your children to obey you is idealism - nothing wrong with that so long as you realize idealism is tofu ... it really sucks until you flavor it.

I don't expect everyone to want their children to have all the facts - please! Knowledge is not what Christianity is about - I learned that the hard way.  But what i don't understand is the blatant willingness to risk their very lives based on an ideal they may or may not subscribe to and what their bodies are cloaking regardless.  That said, I'm still considering purchasing a chastity belt for the daughter.

I knew a girl in high school who went uneducated and did exactly what her parents told her to do ... submit to the one you love (the commandment for women, supposedly).  Well, she submitted all right.  Later she submitted that baby to the state.

Good luck to you, Bill.  I pray your idealism comes to fruition ... with or without the pepper of reality.


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Some parents believe that children will become adults and that they will then begin to make the decisions that will make them 'well-rounded' (whatever that is), independent, and responsible members of society. But they also believe that these values are to be instilled by parents and not by society in the form of formal indoctrination into morals the state considers fair, just, and correct.
> 
> I have no problem with schools teaching about eggs, sperm, intercourse, and that's where babies come from. That's all biology. *I object to them telling children that some sex acts my religion disapproves of are actually OK, or that they can have sex if they want to, no matter what parents tell them, and oh by the way, here's a bunch of free condoms. Well-rounded? Perhaps, if you mean the girls all end up with round heels*.


 
As I think the same and said so why are you castigating me? I said that the biology of it should be taught in schools, I've never said the morality should. I said parent should talk to their children as Shesulsa posted so why am I being slated as the 'liberal' here who wants to teach children all about anal sex etc? I've never said that children should be told they should go out and experiment.
I don't find anything shocking or wrong, again you are reading into my posts something that's not there. 
If our aim is not to have responsible, independant adults who are good citizens what the hell is it then? What exactly do you want your children growing into? I really don't understand why you are so angry about my posts.
My premise.... that society should consist of responsible, mature adults with a moral code and a sense of right and wrong. Children should be taught about sex in an age appropriate way as a part of their science curriculum. Methods of birth control, avoidance of diseases, infertility, how to check breasts and scrotum for lumps (thus saving lives from cancers which if caught early saves lives) menstruation, menapause ( thus teaching men it's normal and not a lewd joke) body imaging (teaching children that big boobs and skinny bodies aren't really the norm) etc should all be taught. This is the mechanics of sex, having same sex partners, fetishes, experimenting etc aren't.
Parents are responsible for the when of having sex, the talking over of it, the right time and the wrong time etc. 
I said quite clearly our aim as in this country we have young adults at 16 who are independant of parents. What you do in your country is up to you but we know what our aim is. 
I have not said anywhere that we should not permit parents to do anything! Where did I said parents should be banned from anything?


----------



## shesulsa (May 17, 2009)

I have always maintained that sex is a double-edged blade ... it is a health issue (life or death) and it is a moral/social issue.

While I think the medical facts - the how, what, where, when, who ... all facets ... should be taught by qualified professionals as part of regular education.  Problem is, even with what we have now, the facts being taught are medically wrong!!

I think the moral and social implications should be covered at home.  

As to providing teens access to condoms, etcetera being the same as saying, "It's okay to have sex now," I think that's bull ****.  We have alcohol around - hell, we MAKE our own wine.  It's around. All the time.  The kids help us make it.  We drink wine in front of them, but not to excess - they have never seen us drunk.  Our purpose is for the health benefits of carefully made, natural wine and they are clear on that.  We've discussed the responsibilities of alcohol use as well as the enjoyment factor.  They have had the benefit of seeing someone addicted and witnessing the repercussions of substance abuse.  

Some day, they will have the house to themselves or they will go to a party where alcohol is flowing.  I will not be there.  But not only will our lessons be there, they will know which drink has how much alcohol, they will have a phone number to call if they do screw up for a SAFE RIDE HOME, they will hopefully be able to stop their friends from drinking to excess and will be able to trust us with understanding and responsibility.

But they are quite clear that they do NOT have permission to drink here nor anywhere else.  I will not provide alcohol for them and their friends at a party, I will not allow them to get drunk at my house with me when underage because that's not right.  _But should they do so elsewhere, they will know where their quality infomation came from - they will know who cared enough to tell them the truth. And they will likely come to me._

Sex is not much different, imho.


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

Shesulsa, you are right, we have to give our children the tools to cope with life and I believe you are doing it in the best way. As I said before my daughter is 24 next month and was brought up as you are bringing your daughter up. Mine has a good job, lives with a fantastic boyfriend, has a nice home and car and good moral values. I couldn't be more proud of her. 
It's all very fine expecting your children to obey you but thats assuming you are going to be there all the time to guide them, sadly this isn't always possible. I wanted my children to be able to stand on ther own two feet and to make the decisions that affect them, and frankly having sex is going to affect them far more than me in reality, in a well thought out way. 
Having sex though isn't the worst thing you should worry about though and making too much of it can lead to problems. I think it's too tied up with religion and the Christian idea of sex and women being 'dirty'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I have not said anywhere that we should not permit parents to do anything! Where did I said parents should be banned from anything?



You say both things.  First, as you stated, you do say that the biology aspect should be taught in school, and the morality aspect taught by parents.  We agree on that.  

Then you go further and state what a parent ought properly to believe and therefore teach to their child.  You state a premise as if it is a fact, then draw a conclusion based on that premise.  I am saying that I disagree with your premise (that a parent ought to want to teach their child about all aspects of sexuality) and therefore I disagree with your conclusion.

Where we seem to be getting at loggerheads is that you still think your premise (that teaching all aspects of sexuality is part of creating a well-rounded adult) is a universal truth, and I do not think it is.

Of course I would want a child of mine to be a good, intelligent, open-minded, thoughtful, wonderful and well-rounded person.  However, I don't think that teaching them all aspects of sexuality, and particularly that various forms of sex are OK, is part of that.  

I don't think that teaching children that it is OK to experiment with sex when I have told them NO is OK, either.  Therefore, I find myself not in alignment with raising what you have described as a 'well-rounded' adult.  If that is your definition, then no, I do not want a child of mine to be that.

If we were having this discussion about driver's education, it would not seem so difficult.  The school may teach driver's education, but they do not either condone nor encourage driving without a parent's permission.  They don't slip the kid a driver's license and a rental car and suggest they take it out for a spin if that's what they really want to do, no matter what the parents want. 

A parent may likewise allow or disallow their child from driving as they wish, and none dare gainsay their right or insist that their child will not grow up to be 'well-rounded' if they are not permitted to drive.

Yet let the parent ban sexual activity instead of driving a car, and suddenly that's just not OK for the parent to do.  Suddenly it is all about society's right to insist that the child be given a 'well-rounded' education, to include sexual activity if they so desire, despite parent's objections or even laws against it.

And by the way, I'm not angry.  Many people think I must be furious and slamming the keyboard and stomping around muttering to myself or something.  I'm enjoying some bottled water on a nice spring day, and I'm about to step out to do my laundry and get a bit to eat.  I feel great, I'm happy, hope you are too.  I guess my words are so direct that people imagine I'm furious when I write them.  Sorry!


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 17, 2009)

If other sexual activities are presented here is a small list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_humping

Would these be considered safer effective alternatives to the already debunked absentience only idea? Would this lead to a more conscious choice involving pregnancy and STD's because it allows kids for a more hands on approach?


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

Shesulsa, you must have posted at much the same time as me! all I can say is....... EXACTLY! 

Bill, I have never said that parents should believe anything.
This is what I said about parents teaching children
"_If you talk to your children, if you explain everything to them as Shesulsa posts, if you treat it as you would every other subject, the children will respond. It's not absinence teaching, it's not teaching them to use alternatives, it's teaching them to think for themselves, to make decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Thats what you are aiming for isn't it...bringing up your children to be well rounded responsible independent adults? "_

This is about parents teaching their children, I didn't say what they should teach did I?
I also said " _Parents are free then to teach their children hopefully by example, their morality"_

You have made a great deal of assumptions about me which frankly upset me. Yes you do come across as angy....angry and determined to not understand what I'm say8ing.

At no point did I say that being well rounded means knowing every sexual practice in the book, well rounded means having the tools to be able to make an informed decision by having the facts to hand. it. Being well rounded obviously means something different to you.
*well-round·ed* (w
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





l
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




roun
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




d
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




d) 
_adj._ *1. *Comprehensively developed and well-balanced in a range or variety of aspects: _a well-rounded scholar; a well-rounded curriculum_



anyway I have to go and do a night shift. Have fun. 


__________________


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

The Dutch way of presenting sex education.

http://www.teachers.tv/video/12118


----------



## JDenver (May 17, 2009)

The US has;
- the highest per capita abortion rates in the industrial world
- highest per capita teenage pregnancy rates
- highest number of per capita STD's

Industrialized nations with the lowest rates all have full sex ed courses starting as young as 7 years old (no, nothing weird....).

If you take these stats at all seriously you know that something must change.  The status quo is failing miserably.  It isn't that parents need to whip their kids or that kids have to stop watching movies.  Kids in the US have no idea what they're doing when they take their pants off and these stats prove it.


----------



## tellner (May 17, 2009)

JDenver said:


> If you take these stats at all seriously you know that something must change.  The status quo is failing miserably.



No! We have to keep on doing EXACTLY what we have been doing but harder, more strictly and spend more money on it.

Sorry. I was channeling my inner Fundie for a moment


----------



## tellner (May 17, 2009)

Coincidentally, there's a very interesting article in Salon that touches on this...



> The virginity fetish 		Why is our culture so obsessed with girls' chastity? Author Jessica Valenti talks about how purity balls and "barely legal" porn both feed the same idea: That a woman's worth is between her legs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2009)

JDenver said:


> The US has;
> - the highest per capita abortion rates in the industrial world



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo_percap-health-abortions-per-capita

I believe you will find that honor belongs to Russia.  Furthermore, 'per capita abortions' says nothing about how sex education, or the lack of it, affects abortions.  One might recall that it was the 'abortion right on demand' people who also favor the most liberalized sex education programs.  Now we have both, and suddenly the left is shocked that they got what they wanted?



> - highest per capita teenage pregnancy rates


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380323,00.html

The teenage pregnancy rate rose in 2008 for the first time since 1991; it had been steadily dropping.  Funny, now that we've _proven_ teaching abstinence doesn't work, suddenly teenage pregnancy rates are on the rise again.



> - highest number of per capita STD's


http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticsworldwide.htm

Again, I'm afraid not.  In fact, North America ranks nearly the lowest



> Industrialized nations with the lowest rates all have full sex ed courses starting as young as 7 years old (no, nothing weird....).


Not true at all - Europe, with the most progressive sexual education courses, has a higher rate of STD infection.



> If you take these stats at all seriously you know that something must change.


Even if they are not true?



> The status quo is failing miserably.  It isn't that parents need to whip their kids or that kids have to stop watching movies.  Kids in the US have no idea what they're doing when they take their pants off and these stats prove it.


Even if the stats are not true?

I think before leaning on statistics to prove a point, the statistics ought to have some basis in fact, or it's like having your crutch kicked out from under you.


----------



## MJS (May 17, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> I was reading the paper today and a 16 yr old was asking a Sex columnist about how her boyfriend does not want to use a condom and she does not want to use the pill and what they can do.
> 
> The Sex columnist spoke about how people say abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy. The Sex columnist then listed other possible ways to be sexual intimate such as mutual masterbation ,using devices(toys) anal sex and oral sex and so on.
> 
> Do you think schools or parents in discussing Sex Ed should discuss these alternatives along with abstinence or do you think abstinence alone is enough?


 

This tells me, that is a 16yo is asking a sex columnist about sex, that the childs parents are not doing their part by teaching their kids about sex.  IMHO, this is something that a parent should be doing.  The school of course, should provide sex ed. classes as well.  I think that alot of the times, parents think that their kids wont have sex, or they try to think that if they protect their kids from it, that they won't end up like all the other people that we see, ie: 13yr olds with babies.  Sadly, those parents are living in a fantasy if they honestly think that their kids will never see or hear about sex.  I mean, turn on the tv and theres a damn good chance you'll see people in bed, kissing, etc.  

I'd rather teach my kids and instill good judgement in them, rather than have them know nothing and get themselves in trouble.


----------



## MJS (May 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> i would say that sex ed should be changed.
> 
> they should take the girls to the welfare office and show them the women with 5 kids from 5 men, who cant hold down jobs and SUFFER for being sexually STUPID about birth control
> 
> ...


 
I like this post.  However, as good of an idea as it seems, part of me thinks that it wont work.  The reason....kids get into car accidents all the time, around prom time, the local FDs and PDs stage mock major accidents, to show the kids the reality of DUI, etc.  The schools hold safe after prom parties, to give the kids a safe place to have fun, without the risks of anything bad happening.  But, there're still kids who disregard that, have the 'it won't happen to me' attitude, and wind up in a jam anyways.

Again, I'm not totally disagreeing with you, just saying that as much as we hope this idea works, it isnt 100%.


----------



## MJS (May 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Should we teach children it is OK to cross the street without mommy or daddy, because they're going to do it anyway? Or may we continue to insist that they abstain from crossing the street by themselves?
> 
> Abstinence is not a dirty word, and it is entirely acceptable for a parent to absolutely deny a course of action to a child. *DO NOT DO THIS.* Plain, simple, easily understandable, and within a parent's purview.
> 
> ...


 
See my first post in this thread regarding your comments.  I will add though, that if parents insist on wishing that their kids dont have sex, a reason should be given.  If parents just say, "NO DONT DO IT!!!" without anything further, that, IMO, will do nothing but raise their curiosity.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 17, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's not in my camp. I would be a bit upset, as a parent, to discover that little Jimmy had been taught in a mandatory sex-ed class at school that if he can't keep his phallum bway-bway tucked away, it's OK to get some condoms and live it up.
> 
> It seems odd to me that as a parent, I could tell little Jimmy that God exists, Jesus saves, and etc - and the school won't tell Jimmy that daddy is a liar. But if I tell Jimmy that he is not allowed to engage in sexual intercourse, the school can override my teachings and tell little Jimmy that it's OK to get some condoms and get bizzy.
> 
> ...


 
Actually Bill, I'm in complete agreement with you in so much as I don't think sexual education should be the purvue of the state. Parents are, and should be held, responsible for educating their children, and such education should fall directly to them, or to some individual that they _expressely and voluntarily _delegate that authority to.

This should not be taught in our compulsory public education system. It compels students to attend, and by extension, compels our children to be taught the sexual proclivities of the state, which I would contend are not in the best interest of the people.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (May 17, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> It's not dirty, it's not dangerous in itself merely a normal function of human beings however lack of knowledge of this function is very dangerous.


 
While I agree with the tone of your post in general, I would say that sex _can_ be quite dangerous if it is practiced in an irresponsible manner. Teen sexual behavior _can _be a contributing factor to poverty, poor education, and criminal activity, both for men and women. It _can_ lead to child abuse or neglect. It _can _lead to destructive relationships, spousal abuse, and broken homes. It _can _lead to many different diseases, some of which are life threatening.

I'm not saying sex is bad. I'm saying it needs to be taken seriously.


-Rob


----------



## JDenver (May 17, 2009)

BILL - 

You use the nationmaster stats to disprove one stat, then ignore that it substantiates all the other ones.  That's odd.  I suppose all that does is prove what we already all know, stats are moving targets.  However, every stat I've ever seen suggests that 70 million Americans have an STD.  

I suppose it comes down to this;
- tell teens, raging with hormones and lack of good judgment, that they should just not have sex or they'll be violating their parents' wishes and committing immoral acts.

OR

- tell teens, raging with hormones and lack of good judgment, how sex works with all of the latent dangers, so that if they do it they don't get pregnant, sick, or die (HIV).

I guess we can either protect children or our perception of morality.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 17, 2009)

so teach them not to take thier pants off n the first place?

seriously. Why do people just refuse to teach thier kids NOT to be out screwing around?





JDenver said:


> The US has;
> Kids in the US have no idea what they're doing when they take their pants off and these stats prove it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 17, 2009)

JDenver said:


> You use the nationmaster stats to disprove one stat, then ignore that it substantiates all the other ones.  That's odd.



I'm sorry, I must have missed the link to your stats. Where were they again?



> I suppose all that does is prove what we already all know, stats are moving targets.



Yes, I suppose it is best for your argument if you abandon your stats now, since they've kind of gone bad on you.  The general form is to exit with a snide remark about statistics in general - oops, I see you have that one down.



> However, every stat I've ever seen suggests that 70 million Americans have an STD.



Which has what to do with your point?  Remember, we were talking about sex ed? Which of these is a juvenile?



> I suppose it comes down to this;
> - tell teens, raging with hormones and lack of good judgment, that they should just not have sex or they'll be violating their parents' wishes and committing immoral acts.
> 
> OR
> ...



How about a parent tells 'em both?  I suppose that answer's not possible in your government-mandated either/or scenario?



> I guess we can either protect children or our perception of morality.



I guess parents either get to decide how to raise their children, or you decide for them.  I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but I'd rather leave parenting to parents.


----------



## shesulsa (May 17, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> If other sexual activities are presented here is a small list:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_humping
> 
> Would these be considered safer effective alternatives to the already debunked absentience only idea? Would this lead to a more conscious choice involving pregnancy and STD's because it allows kids for a more hands on approach?



I think dry humping should be discussed as part of sex education, though I think contact with bodily fluids should be discouraged ... what, with ONE IN FOUR teen girls with some kind of STD or STI.  There's an awful lot you can do with your pants on, after all.

Tez, thanks for your comments - we agree muchly! 

And we can all sit around typing out our thoughts, but ... what are your kids doing right now?


----------



## JDenver (May 17, 2009)

BILL - 

What else to say?  You post stats against mine, I am concilliatory that stats are elusive things, you throw it in my face.

It's too bad that I don't feel like continuing with any discussion like this.  I will leave you to it.


----------



## arnisador (May 17, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> Why do people just refuse to teach thier kids NOT to be out screwing around?



Because the only people who think you can beat back thousands of years of evolution are the ones who don't believe in it in the first place?


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> While I agree with the tone of your post in general, I would say that sex _can_ be quite dangerous if it is practiced in an irresponsible manner. Teen sexual behavior _can _be a contributing factor to poverty, poor education, and criminal activity, both for men and women. It _can_ lead to child abuse or neglect. It _can _lead to destructive relationships, spousal abuse, and broken homes. It _can _lead to many different diseases, some of which are life threatening.
> 
> I'm not saying sex is bad. I'm saying it needs to be taken seriously.
> 
> ...


 

This is why I said sex *in itself* is not dangerous, it's the stuff that us humans bring into it.


----------



## Tez3 (May 17, 2009)

Bill, when you say Europe has the most progressive sex education you do realise that Europe isn't one country? In fact most of Europe's countries have far less progressive sex education than America or the UK as they are Catholic countries where contraception and abortion is illegal. You will only find a couple of countries where sex education can be regarded as 'progressive' and they are the Protestant ones such as the Netherlands and the Scandanavian ones, you won't find *progressive* sex education in Italy, France, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourg, Poland,Belgium,Eire, Liechtenstein, Andorra and Switzerland.These countries do have sex education in schools but it is very conservative. In Poland there is no sex education in schools at all though this will change from September this year. In Germany sex education is by law a governmental duty. In the UK sex education in schools is not compulsory.
The former Soviet bloc countries where for many years abortion was the only 'contraception' have started sex education and are allowing other forms of contraception to be available to the effect that abortion numbers are dropping, bear in mind though countries like Romania are poor and schooling isn't to the standard of the rest of Europe. We also have Muslim countries like Turkey where sex education is given according to Muslim views.
Greece has an interesting idea, their medical students go out to schools to ddebate subjects with same sex groups, there's no taboo subject with them but it's up to the group to ask what they want to know, the purpose behind this though is to prevent STDs.


----------



## shesulsa (May 18, 2009)

Why can't you give kids the facts - which, btw, include all the dangers and negative consequences, AND thus give them good reason beyond your word TO keep their pants on?

What is the sin to doing both?


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 18, 2009)

Personally, I think the best thing to do is to give kids facts and information. The whole notion of not educating them seems foolish to me.
Like it or not, they will end up in a situation where their hormones are telling them to have sex (for boys this is 24/7) and that is where the information you provided can make a difference.

I am not saying you have to give them condoms if you don't want, but giving them clear information can't hurt. That way, they won't end up in the back seat of a car, armed with the 'knowledge' that you can't get pregnant first time...

Keeping kids ignorant is not a solution. That is just sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'lalalalalala' and hoping that nothing bad happens.
Kids will have sex, whether you like it or not. They only thing you can control is how much they know, and whether they have that information from a trusted source or not.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 18, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Why can't you give kids the facts - which, btw, include all the dangers and negative consequences, AND thus give them good reason beyond your word TO keep their pants on?
> 
> What is the sin to doing both?


 
Not only that, but if you give them a command without any supporting reasoning, you teach your children that your position is unsupportable. You in fact give them reasons _not_ to pay attention to your opinion, because if it _could_ be supported by reason, it would be.

If you give them a suggestion, and back it with evidentiary support, you not only reinforce why they should pay attention to _that _suggestion, you reinforce the strength of _all_ your positions at the same time. Clearly, a person who is able to look at the facts about _one _issue and reach a logical conclusion is likely to do so with regards to other issues as well. 

Commanding through fiat and fear may be effective in the short term, but leading through reason and ration will be effective in the long term. Those kids will be making their decisions about sex when _you aren't in the room._ I would rather that they had the best possible education on which to base those decisions. 

If the totality of their position on abstinence, or any other issue, is based on a fear of their parents, then all they have to do is convince themselves that their parents might not find out, or that it's worth the risk that they might. If their position is based on a wealth of knowledge and understanding, then they are more likely to come to the same rational, reasoned conclusion that you did.


-Rob


----------



## Stac3y (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, that's what liberals want parents to aim for. Parents may wish to raise children who respect their parents and obey them. That is seen by liberal as unacceptable, unreasonable, and freakish. It's sad.


 
Whoa, there, Bill! I consider myself to be not just a bleeding heart liberal, but beyond that--maybe a sucking chest wound liberal? Please don't generalize politically liberal parents this way.

My goal as a parent is to rear children who are able to function well in society and be safe and happy. My children (ages 8 and 10) are very obedient, excellent students, hard workers, and say "sir" and "ma'am" and "please" and "thank you." They are fully aware of the biological processes involved with sexuality, puberty, menstruation, STDs, and know what condoms are and why they are used. We discuss these things clinically, because they NEED the full information. 

We also stress abstinence until adulthood, and that only adults can make the decisions necessary to form committed relationships in which sex is appropriate. Sex is for adults; not kids; not teenagers. We don't base this on some nebulous "morality" but on the facts: Sex before adulthood is a STUPID idea. The risks outweigh the rewards. And if we ever catch them fooling around, they will be in so much trouble that they might not survive it. Basically, we teach them that having sex if you are not prepared for the potential consequences (babies, most importantly) is just a horrible idea. Once you are a parent, nothing else is as important as parenting. Teenagers are not emotionally, fiscally, or intellectually prepared for child-rearing. 

The problem with abstinence only education is that it doesn't address all the facts (also that it's been proven not to work.) Education in general is intended to provide kids with information they need to succeed later in life. Many parents are unwilling or unable to provide the full clinical information that kids need. I see addressing the biological and mechanical processes of sexuality (in a neutral fashion) and the dangers of them as part of science education. No morality need be applied to show kids that they should wait. Abstinence only education basically just says "don't do it;" it doesn't give adequate reasons why, and it doesn't prepare kids for adulthood by giving them the facts.

Wow, I sure wrote a lot when all I really wanted to say was that not all liberal parents are raising little monsters. So, to reiterate: abstinence only education doesn't work, and lots of liberals are strict disciplinarians, and lots of conservatives raise brats.


----------



## Tez3 (May 18, 2009)

_Stac3y, a post from the heart straight to the point! Hurrah!_
As it was me he was calling a liberal, a description I'm proud to carry btw, I should point out to Bill, I'm a Liberal in the British sense not American. We have a long proud history and count among our members Winston Churchill,  Lloyd George, Asquith, Gladstone and of course Adam Smith and Thomas Paine. One belief is in srong civil liberties and private ownership.
Knowledge is power and arming our children with knowledge is one of the best things we can do for them.


----------



## Flea (May 18, 2009)

This reminds me of a curious chapter in my childhood:

When I was 12 my family had a dinner party and mom passed around a pot of coffee with dessert.  I asked for a cup out of curiosity, and my mother decided to be crafty with some reverse psychology and give me a cup.  What 12yo is going to like coffee, right?  This would save her the trouble of denying it to me later when I _did_ want to drink it.

I loved that sip, her little miscalculation upset our domestic tranquillity for the next three years.  It wasn't that coffee was that important to me, but her arguments against my coffee drinking were so transparent that it was a screaming match every time we ate out and _she_ ordered a cup, every time we had guests and _they_ got a cup.  My problem was that her arguments were asinine:

*The caffeine is bad for you - we only keep decaf in the house, and what about all the tea we drink?  What about all the chocolate we eat?

* It stains your teeth - but you drink it and _your_ teeth look fine.

And so forth ... there's no prosecutor like an angry teenager, so I squeezed the truth out of her every time.  Grandma didn't let _her_ drink coffee until _she_ was 18, so that was the rule for Flea too.  Just because.  It got to the point that my dad went out of his way to sneak me coffee because he got tired of defending her on that. Once I even stole my mother's credit card and went to a coffeeshop (it's really pretty funny when you consider the alternative.  Some of my friends were into promiscuity and drugs - I filched an iced mocha!)  If she had just given me a credible reason why she didn't want me drinking coffee, I would have respected it - or at least toned down my rebellion.  But nobody sees through stupidity and hypocrisy like a teenager.  

The sad thing was that I was an excellent student ultimately graduating high school with high honors.  I was active in my church, lots of extracurriculars, and a squeaky-clean boyfriend.  It hurt at the time that she took all those things for granted in favor of picking such a pointless battle, and it cost her a lot of my respect in the long term.   Strangely, she offered no comment when I got hot and heavy with said boyfriend - maybe she was exhausted from The Coffee Wars.

Would somebody please pass the half and half?


----------



## Tez3 (May 18, 2009)

Sorry, this is a bit off track but I've often wondered why coffee in America is considered adults only? do you put something in it the rest of us don't have?


----------



## Flea (May 18, 2009)

I'll have to refer you to my mother on that. 

 :whip1:

More to the point, what I don't understand is why everyone gets their unmentionables into such macrame over the sexual practices of _other people_.  From gay mawwidge to stiletto heels to interracial dating, even with celibacy, nothing is immune to criticism.  And yet nobody seems to examine their own lives?  Are we all that oblivious to our own flaws and insecurities?  And why is sexuality such a universal lightning rod for judging one's neighbor?  I honestly don't get it.

Sigh ... guess I'll just have another cup of coffee.  Tez, want to join me in a donut?


----------



## Tez3 (May 18, 2009)

Flea said:


> I'll have to refer you to my mother on that.
> 
> :whip1:
> 
> ...


----------



## Stac3y (May 18, 2009)

Flea said:


> This reminds me of a curious chapter in my childhood:
> 
> When I was 12 my family had a dinner party and mom passed around a pot of coffee with dessert. I asked for a cup out of curiosity, and my mother decided to be crafty with some reverse psychology and give me a cup. What 12yo is going to like coffee, right? This would save her the trouble of denying it to me later when I _did_ want to drink it.
> 
> ...


 
I tell my kids the truth: 

1. Caffeine is bad for bodies that are still growing (worse than it is for adults); and 

2. They are energetic enough; if they get any more so, I might get very, very cranky with them. :rpo:


----------



## Tez3 (May 18, 2009)

Stac3y said:


> I tell my kids the truth:
> 
> 1. Caffeine is bad for bodies that are still growing (worse than it is for adults); and
> 
> 2. They are energetic enough; if they get any more so, I might get very, very cranky with them. :rpo:


 
Ah, I see, thank you!


----------



## Stac3y (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Of course I would want a child of mine to be a good, intelligent, open-minded, thoughtful, wonderful and well-rounded person. However, I don't think that teaching them all aspects of sexuality, and particularly that various forms of sex are OK, is part of that.
> 
> I don't think that teaching children that it is OK to experiment with sex when I have told them NO is OK, either.
> <Snip>
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2009)

Stac3y said:


> [
> Bill, could you please tell me where you are getting the information that schools are teaching kids that experimenting with sex is okay (especially against their parents' permission)? Being a librarian, the spouse of a public school teacher, and a product of public education myself, I have NEVER, EVER heard of teachers encouraging kids to go out and have sex. NEVER. I have, however, seen kids being told by teachers NOT to have sex, but without being told what constitutes sex.



When a school offers sex education and gives away free condoms on demand, as well as offers underage girls access to birth control methods, without notifying the parents, they are encouraging sexual behavior.

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/01110.html

Yes, you are right - the teachers don't say _"Go out and have sex."_  What they say is _"It is risky to go out and have sex.  Have a condom, but whatever you do, don't have sex using it."_

Let us not play silly buggers regarding this situation.  During prohibition, many companies sold grape juice with instructions on what not to do, because that might make wine, and wine was illegal.  Gasp.  Now they tell the kids not to have sex, but here, have a condom, or here, have some birth control pills.  Some even offer state-paid abortions for juvenile girls on demand, no parental notification there, either.  Don't worry, we can't tell your parents by law.  Now go have fun - no sex, now, remember!



> Public school sex ed is intended to give the facts, not to convey any moral/religious or pro-juvenile sex message. If you know of a teacher or school that is doing that, I suggest you report them to your local school board.



Sexual education does not belong in public schools, period.  How sex works? Sure, that's biology class.  That there are people who have other kinds of sex than your basis heterosexual sort?  Sure, sociology class.  Have a condom kid?  No.


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Personally, I think the best thing to do is to give kids facts and information. The whole notion of not educating them seems foolish to me.
> Like it or not, they will end up in a situation where their hormones are telling them to have sex (for boys this is 24/7) and that is where the information you provided can make a difference.
> 
> I am not saying you have to give them condoms if you don't want, but giving them clear information can't hurt. That way, they won't end up in the back seat of a car, armed with the 'knowledge' that you can't get pregnant first time...
> ...


 
Probably one of the best posts I've read so far in this thread!!!  This pretty much echos my thoughts.  We never want to see anything 'bad' happen to anyone.  I think that people are really living in a fantasy dream, if they think that kids won't do this or that.....they will.  

As it was said in this post and in mine....I'd rather teach them and even provide them with the proper protection, instead of my son coming home and telling me that he got his gf pregnant or my daughter coming home telling me that she is pregnant.  For the record, I dont have kids.  I'm simply speaking from what my parents taught me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2009)

MJS said:


> Probably one of the best posts I've read so far in this thread!!!  This pretty much echos my thoughts.  We never want to see anything 'bad' happen to anyone.  I think that people are really living in a fantasy dream, if they think that kids won't do this or that.....they will.
> 
> As it was said in this post and in mine....I'd rather teach them and even provide them with the proper protection, instead of my son coming home and telling me that he got his gf pregnant or my daughter coming home telling me that she is pregnant.  For the record, I dont have kids.  I'm simply speaking from what my parents taught me.



This is all well and good for what you would do with regard to your children.

Now how does that apply to sexual education as taught in schools?

How does it apply to parents who do not want the public schools teaching this 'correct' education to their children?

And do parents have the right to teach the 'wrong' information regarding sex to their children if they prefer?


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This is all well and good for what you would do with regard to your children.


 
Thank you. 



> Now how does that apply to sexual education as taught in schools?


 
Sex Ed. should be a part of a health class.  At least it was in my high school.  I'm sure there're set things that are to be covered.  



> How does it apply to parents who do not want the public schools teaching this 'correct' education to their children?


 
Then write a letter saying that they dont want their child to participate in the class?  However, if its something required, I dont know what can be done.  Nobody said, at least not that I saw, that the schools version was 'correct, the end all, be all' of sex ed, but just another subject.  I doubt that the schools are encouraging the kids to have sex.  



> And do parents have the right to teach the 'wrong' information regarding sex to their children if they prefer?


 
Wrong info?  Not sure what you mean Bill.  Are you saying that the parents may want the option to, hmm...how do I say this...Sugar Coat things so their kids will get a taste, but not too much?  

Of course Bill, what you just said, can really apply to anything in school.  

Bill, parents can do what they want.  However, for those that live with the rose colored glasses on, those that think that their "little girl" will never dream about those naughty, naughty things, I dont want them to be surprised when their little girl experiments, because curiosity got the better of her.  

Guess I dont see what the big deal is man.  Just lay it on the line.  Have that chat that all parents cringe about, and teach the kids right from wrong, the do's and don'ts, and yes, provide them with the resources to use.  I'd rather give my kid a condom, making sure that they know how to use it, and have safe sex, instead of experimenting some night in the back lot of the industrial park at 12am in the back of a car.  

Like I said, kids are going to drink, they're going to party, they're going to have sex.  Teach them right, always re-enforce that, and hope that when the time comes, they use that good judgement.  

My parents knew I was going to parties, and I'm sure they knew what was going on.  We can't keep our kids in a bubble for their entire life, because if we do, when they head off to college and they're on their own, look out.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2009)

I hear what you're saying, but you tell us what you're OK with and then sort of imply that everyone should be OK with that.

And that's been the nature of the discussion in this thread.  The question was whether or not sex ed should be changed.  Everyone seems to be wanting to say how they feel about sex ed, and not really addressing the issue of what rights parents who do not feel the same way they do should do.

When I've raised the point that in my opinion, parents should be the teachers of sex ed to their kids, everyone appears to want to explain why parents should feel the way THEY feel - but not what happens if a parent just refuses to feel the way others think they should feel.

The point is this - if a parent wants to lay down the law to their kids and say _"Do not have sex, I forbid it,"_ the answer should not be how do we explain to this clod how wrong he is.  It should be well, this guy is a clod, but he's got the right to raise his children as he sees fit.

People perceive a problem - kids getting std's, kids getting pregnant.  Many of them believe that abstinence training does not work.  That may or may not be true, but the overall consensus in this thread appears to be to proceed directly from _"here is the problem"_ to _"and therefore we need to do this"_ without stopping to ask if it is any business of public school system to override parental rights.

I have read several responses to my comments, written as if to a child, trying to explain to me why full education is better than teaching abstinence.  For myself, I don't disagree with that.  My disagreement is that no matter how wonderful it is, it is not the right of the school system to override the will of the parent.

Tez has gone to great lengths to point out the same thing - that the part about 'permission' to have sex should reside with the parent - and I agree.  But then she tells me (again, as if I were retarded) that full disclosure is better than just saying 'no'.  And again, that basically says _"You ought to want to do this, but if you don't want to do this, you should be compelled to do this."_

My basic point - parents have the right to teach their children sexual education and to NOT have the public school system do it.  If they have that right,  they have the right to teach it even in a manner you disagree with,  a way you think is stupid or self-destructive or just plain wrong.  If they do not have that right, then we have a different disagreement.


----------



## arnisador (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How does it apply to parents who do not want the public schools teaching this 'correct' education to their children?



Same as evolution--they can teach them it's wrong at home and church, but the schools have a duty to form educated citizens. Public schools are a public benefit.



> And do parents have the right to teach the 'wrong' information regarding sex to their children if they prefer?



Of course parents can teach their children as they wish. I suppose they could teach them to drive on the left side of the road if they wanted to.


----------



## teekin (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When a school offers sex education and gives away free condoms on demand, as well as offers underage girls access to birth control methods, without notifying the parents, they are encouraging sexual behavior.
> 
> http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/01110.html
> 
> ...



Bill, Exactly what are Your solutions then? No sex Ed in class. Fine what about kids who's parents don't talk to them except at full drunken scream "CUM EER EW LIL *****".  Think she'll get a all the correct info she needs, support to make the right moral choices? Money for birth control or condoms to prevent STD's?  What if she gets pregnent, what does she do? Who does she tell? Where does she go? Lets talk about this girl and "Now go have Fun".
Lori


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> Bill, Exactly what are Your solutions then? No sex Ed in class. Fine what about kids who's parents don't talk to them except at full drunken scream "CUM EER EW LIL *****".  Think she'll get a all the correct info she needs, support to make the right moral choices? Money for birth control or condoms to prevent STD's?  What if she gets pregnent, what does she do? Who does she tell? Where does she go? Lets talk about this girl and "Now go have Fun".
> Lori



It's a difficult question, isn't it?  Some parents, given the power to raise their children as they see fit, fail to do so, or do so in such a fashion that we all dread the results.

I don't like that so many parents fail in their duties and responsibilities.

But I don't see the solution to that problem in usurping that right from parents - it doesn't just take the authority to raise their child as they see fit from lousy parents, but also from good ones.

Just like gun control.  There are always idiots with guns.  Fortunately, they are a tiny percentage of the gun-owning public.  It is unfortunate that such idiots exist, and I don't have any ready answers for that problem, except that I believe restricting the rights of all guns owners, including the responsible ones, isn't it.

There is a basic political aspect to problems of this sort, and I've been talking about it in this thread.  In basic terms, liberals see social problems and believe the answer to them is to get the government involved.  Conservatives see the same social problems, and believe that families should resolve them.  I'm conservative.  So there you go.  I almost never think the answer to a problem is to give more power to the government.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 18, 2009)

My 8th grade health class had sex education in it waaaaaaay back in the stone age. It basically scared the hell out of me and did not give me the desire to go off and start having sex with anyone. My health class also scared me to death about all sorts of shared parasitic infestations that are, in reality, some are rather rare. But then maybe there goal was to make me afraid to touch ABSOLUTLY everyone 

Of course I was a bit young and just starting to get over the whole &#8220;girls are icky&#8221; stage and I assume in High School I would have looked at it in a whole different light but by the time High school rolled around (an entire year later) I pretty much forgot all about the whole 8th grade health class. (actually this is likely the first time I have thuoght about it in years)

But I was a fairly smart kid, although hormonally challenged like all teenage boys, I was fairly level headed about it and did not run off and start having sex unprotected or otherwise. 

So what does this all lead to&#8230; I don&#8217;t really know other than I do feel that there should be sex education in school, at the appropriate age (2nd grade is not appropriate) but as to what that appropriate age is, I couldn&#8217;t tell you. In my day it was not 8th grade but in the world of the 21st century kids are exposed to a lot more (to much IMO) than they were in my day. 

However&#8230;Absolutely NONE of this absolves a parent from any responsibility when it comes to sex ed. There is a lot of the problem, IMO, parents are putting to much responsibility on schools for every single aspect of there child&#8217;s education and when things go wrong it is so much easier to blame the school than take responsibility for what they did or did not do that was at least a contributing factor but more likely the real reason for the whole problem in the first place.

OK, I&#8217;m done.


----------



## Stac3y (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When a school offers sex education and gives away free condoms on demand, as well as offers underage girls access to birth control methods, without notifying the parents, they are encouraging sexual behavior.
> 
> http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/01110.html
> 
> ...


 
Personally, I don't have a problem with condoms being available; though I will lock my sons in their rooms until they are 18 if I find out they have a use for them that involves another person. There are LOTS of things available that parents must teach their kids not to partake of. Like it or not, some kids are going to be poorly parented and are going to be doing each other at the earliest opportunity.  A lot of kids have parents who don't supervise them, or who don't even care if they are sexually active (or encourage it). It's not like they are forcibly passing the things out; they are simply available at the health center.

On the other hand, giving hormonal contraception to eleven year old girls is, IMO, an extremely harmful and dangerous practice--not for "moral" reasons, but for health reasons. Birth control pills can be a contributory factor in blood clots, cancer, and even diabetes. Fortunately, according to the MSNBC article (sorry, Bill; I had to check for other details; I find it very unlikely that a Catholic publication would have a balanced stance on anything related to birth control), "Its very rare that middle schools do this, said Divya Mohan, a spokeswoman for the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care." Once again, though, if the parents were that concerned about a child's health, wouldn't they be accompanying their child to the pediatrician rather than signing them up for confidential school-based health care? And, for that matter, the school's sex ed curriculum is not addressed in the article--just the (stupid, in my opinion) decision to provide contraceptives at the health center. IMO, that has nothing to do with the curriculum. They could get the same thing at their GP's office, also without parental permission.

I agree with you that the mechanics of sex should be covered in biology, the cultural and social aspects in sociology or in some otherwise labeled class that gives the facts and doesn't usurp parents' rights to provide guidance in ethics and morals. What the OP was asking, though, is whether abstinence-only sex ed, which, IMO, provides guidance in ethics and morals without much factual information, needs to be changed. 

Anyway, I think we've beaten this dead horse to a pulp, so I will read any responses, but likely will not respond any more unless something REALLY piques my interest.


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I hear what you're saying, but you tell us what you're OK with and then sort of imply that everyone should be OK with that.


 
Likewise, I'm getting the same from your posts as well.  Seems like you're dead set against sed ed, that it shouldn't be taught period....and that implies that everyone should be OK with that, and if they aren't, they're bad parents, or have messed up views.  My stand is that SOMETHING should be said, and it should not be sugar coated.  I mean, what makes more sense....

1) "Well, er, umm...well,,its, er, um...well, ya see..."

2) Stacie, we're going to have a little chat.  This is a condom.  Its used......"

Dont beat around the bush, just say it.  The more people stumble, the more the kids are going to be confused and curious.  



> And that's been the nature of the discussion in this thread. The question was whether or not sex ed should be changed. Everyone seems to be wanting to say how they feel about sex ed, and not really addressing the issue of what rights parents who do not feel the same way they do should do.


 
No, sex ed should not be changed.  There I said it.   Actually, let me clarify....I've been out of school for many years, so of course, the program should be up with the times.  As for the rights of the parents....as I said, parents can say what they want, and how they want.  However, do not be surprised if your kid screws up.  And when I say "You're" I'm not talking about you per se, but kids and parents in general.  

Tell me though Bill, and you may have said it already, and if you did, please point to the post, but what exactly do YOU feel should be taught, if anything at all?



> When I've raised the point that in my opinion, parents should be the teachers of sex ed to their kids, everyone appears to want to explain why parents should feel the way THEY feel - but not what happens if a parent just refuses to feel the way others think they should feel.


 
Your thoughts, mine, and everyone elses are going to be different.  But, as I said, if a parent tells their kid that sex is bad, sex is evil, dont do this or that until you get married, etc., do you really, honestly think, in todays world, that it'll work?  I'd bet you my paycheck for a month that between the hours of 1230pm and 4pm, I can turn on ANY soap opera and see someone in bed, someone kissing, someone taking their clothes off.  Sex is not limited to that.  So, now the kid has 2 views, but whats the parent going to do....shelter their kid from the evils of the world?  Sorry, it dont work that way.  What happens when the kid goes to school, and mixes with the kids who view things differently?  What about the peer pressure? 

So many things to take into consideration, IMO I think that it should be said how it is, no BSing just say it.  



> The point is this - if a parent wants to lay down the law to their kids and say _"Do not have sex, I forbid it,"_ the answer should not be how do we explain to this clod how wrong he is. It should be well, this guy is a clod, but he's got the right to raise his children as he sees fit.


 
True, but those same people are living in a dream if they think that will always work.  I'd be willing to bet if you went to the mall on a Fri. night and randomly picked 50 teens, more than half will have said that their have engaged in some sort of sex act.  





> My basic point - parents have the right to teach their children sexual education and to NOT have the public school system do it. If they have that right, they have the right to teach it even in a manner you disagree with, a way you think is stupid or self-destructive or just plain wrong. If they do not have that right, then we have a different disagreement.


 
Then why dont you spearhead some worldwide campaign against sex ed in school?  Fact is, I'm sure there're many things that are touchy with some parents.  I'm sure religion is talked about in school.  Maybe someone doesnt like the way anything in done in school.  There is a simple answer....home school.  That way the kids can be programmed, like robots, to think, act, breath, speak, crap, eat, walk, dress, sleep, fart, and burp, the way their parents want them to.  

Kids are going to be exposed to sex, as its everywhere.  The less thats told, the more sugar coated it is, the more curious they'll be.  If a kid has a question, the parent should be open minded enough to talk about it.  I mean really, its 2009, not 1910.


----------



## MBuzzy (May 18, 2009)

I really think that part of the issue here is the Sex Education does not exist for "parents like us."  The kind of people who have put serious thought and consideration into this issue are not the parents of children who Sex Education was created for.

Honestly, did Sex Education come about because the school systems thought they could do it better?  I doubt it.  Sex Education came about because there is a rather large population of parents who simply don't care or refuse to teach their children at all.  i.e. The children are not getting it anywhere else, so the school was forced to implement the program.  Parents who are intelligent and caring enough to post in this thread are going to make the right choices for their children and teach them as they feel they should be taught.  It is the parents who will not teach their children at all or will let their kids go out and do anything they want who need the sex education...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2009)

MJS said:


> Tell me though Bill, and you may have said it already, and if you did, please point to the post, but what exactly do YOU feel should be taught, if anything at all?



Human reproduction taught as biology.  Human differentiation taught as sociology.  Historic concepts of family and sexuality taught as history.

No 'sex ed' classes, and no handing out condoms or putting girls on birth control pills without their parent's permission.



> Your thoughts, mine, and everyone elses are going to be different.  But, as I said, if a parent tells their kid that sex is bad, sex is evil, dont do this or that until you get married, etc., do you really, honestly think, in todays world, that it'll work?



Whether I think it would work is beside the point.  You imply by your statement that since it will not work, it ought not be permitted.



> I'd bet you my paycheck for a month that between the hours of 1230pm and 4pm, I can turn on ANY soap opera and see someone in bed, someone kissing, someone taking their clothes off.  Sex is not limited to that.  So, now the kid has 2 views, but whats the parent going to do....shelter their kid from the evils of the world?  Sorry, it dont work that way.  What happens when the kid goes to school, and mixes with the kids who view things differently?  What about the peer pressure?



What about parental rights?  What you're saying it that since kids will be exposed to all kinds of conflicting ideas about sex, what parents say doesn't matter and ought not be permitted to be the only 'official' teaching on the subject.  I disagree.



> So many things to take into consideration, IMO I think that it should be said how it is, no BSing just say it.



Great for you.  What gives you the right to impose it on others?



> True, but those same people are living in a dream if they think that will always work.  I'd be willing to bet if you went to the mall on a Fri. night and randomly picked 50 teens, more than half will have said that their have engaged in some sort of sex act.



It's the same argument - parents who teach abstinence are wrong.  I get that.  My question is so what?  They're wrong,  so we take their rights away?



> Then why dont you spearhead some worldwide campaign against sex ed in school?  Fact is, I'm sure there're many things that are touchy with some parents.  I'm sure religion is talked about in school.  Maybe someone doesnt like the way anything in done in school.  There is a simple answer....home school.  That way the kids can be programmed, like robots, to think, act, breath, speak, crap, eat, walk, dress, sleep, fart, and burp, the way their parents want them to.



I get involved in local issues regarding public education via the school board.  I go to the meetings when I can and register my opinion.  That's as far as I want to take it.



> Kids are going to be exposed to sex, as its everywhere.  The less thats told, the more sugar coated it is, the more curious they'll be.  If a kid has a question, the parent should be open minded enough to talk about it.  I mean really, its 2009, not 1910.



And I mean, really, parents still have the right to raise their children as they see fit - unless you feel the government must take that right away from them.  Seems like a really liberal viewpoint - that parents can't or won't do the job the way you think it ought to be done, so the government must step in and make it all better for us.  That should work well for gun control, setting salary caps for employees of private companies, well, just about whatever.  Let the government do it, they know best.  After all, it's 2009, not 1776.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> Honestly, did Sex Education come about because the school systems thought they could do it better?



The failure, or assumed failure, of parents to parent does not engage an automated process by which the government is obliged to take that over.

Most Americans have bounced a check at one time or another.  A clear failure of our ability to run our finances.  Better have the government step in and take control of our checkbooks?

I disagree with the entire line of reasoning that says _"Parents failed.  Therefore, it is the job of government to step in."_

That is pure left-wing socialist thinking.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The failure, or assumed failure, of parents to parent does not engage an automated process by which the government is obliged to take that over.
> 
> Most Americans have bounced a check at one time or another. A clear failure of our ability to run our finances. Better have the government step in and take control of our checkbooks?
> 
> ...


 
Sadly most parents don't want to take responsibility and gladly shove it off on to the school. I don't think anyone in the government cares one way or the other until parents complained


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Human reproduction taught as biology. Human differentiation taught as sociology. Historic concepts of family and sexuality taught as history.


 
Ok, thanks for your clarification.  So, going by this then, instruction on the proper use of a condom should be left out and up to the parents discretion to teach?  Fine.  Of course, if the parent chooses not to teach their son/daughter about that, God help them, when the day comes, when Johnny and Suzie are fumbling with the condom, clueless as to how to properly use it.  



> No 'sex ed' classes, and no handing out condoms or putting girls on birth control pills without their parent's permission.


 
We'll agree to disagree on the sex ed. 

I do agree as far as bc pills go.  I mean, thats something that a doc should be doing.  

The condoms...I disagree on that.  

Hey, at least we agree on at least one thing. 





> Whether I think it would work is beside the point. You imply by your statement that since it will not work, it ought not be permitted.


 
Oh, lets not make this discussion about me.  You made a comment, I called you on it, now you dont want to reply?  Let me ask you this Bill.  If 10 parents, randomly picked, told their kids not to engage in ANY sex act until they're married, in todays world, how many out of those 10 do you think will live up to that?





> What about parental rights? What you're saying it that since kids will be exposed to all kinds of conflicting ideas about sex, what parents say doesn't matter and ought not be permitted to be the only 'official' teaching on the subject. I disagree.


 
Good Lord Bill, you keep going back to parental rights, parental rights.  Yes, they do have them.  Did you see where I said they can teach what they want?  My point was...try as they may, they need to be realistic about it, and not try to sugar coat things.  Be honest, be up front and tell the kids what its like in todays world, and what they'll be up against.  





> Great for you. What gives you the right to impose it on others?


 
And what gives you the right to impose your beliefs on me or anyone else?  Once again, we're faced with the "Well, if you disagree with me, you're wrong and dont know what you're talking about" routine that you've displayed in countless other posts.  





> It's the same argument - parents who teach abstinence are wrong. I get that. My question is so what? They're wrong, so we take their rights away?


 
My drivers ed teacher as well as my family told me not to drive like an *******.  But of course, when I graduated from my 4cyl. car to my V8 Camaro, do you really think that I didn't open it up a bit every now and then?  Of course.  So, you can preach abstinence 'til you're blue in the face, but that does not mean that you should not tell your kids about sex.  BTW, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about that poll with the teens Friday at the mall.  I mean, lets hear it Bill.  Do you think that out of those 50 random kids, any significant portion will say that they've never done anything?  





> I get involved in local issues regarding public education via the school board. I go to the meetings when I can and register my opinion. That's as far as I want to take it.


 
And what are the replies from people?





> And I mean, really, parents still have the right to raise their children as they see fit - unless you feel the government must take that right away from them. Seems like a really liberal viewpoint - that parents can't or won't do the job the way you think it ought to be done, so the government must step in and make it all better for us. That should work well for gun control, setting salary caps for employees of private companies, well, just about whatever. Let the government do it, they know best. After all, it's 2009, not 1776.


 
Oh please....don't call me liberal, left, right or anything else.  I'm not into politics or any of that ****.  Once again, we're going back to the rights and the you're disagreeing with me routine.  

As I've said, which you're a) either missing accidentally or b) on purpose, parents can do as they choose.  But, they should realize that in todays world, with the way things are, those old fashion values may not always have success in todays world.  Its not the perfect Ward and June fantasy land that we're living in.


----------



## blindsage (May 18, 2009)

I came up through the American public school system.  I had a health class with sex-ed in 7th grade (in southern California) and in 10th grade (in southern New York).  I don't know why anyone would see the need for sex-ed for 3rd graders, but I also don't see the reason to object to it for middle or high school.  I've been there, _no_, these classes do not encourage sexual activity.  Yes, they are mostly biology and statistical info classes.  No, they do not encourage 'experimenting'.  I also come from a religious family that believes in and encourages abstinence.  I was abstinent until I got married at 31.  I attribute this to both a belief system that promotes abstinence _and_ an education on the biology and the social realities of sex.  

You can rail against sex-ed all day, and I would agree that there is an appropriate age to engage in discussing it in general and specific elements of it, but if your argument is education promotes activity, your logic is all kinds of flawed.  And parents can still educate their children in their beliefs and values _and_ have their children exposed to ideas that differ from theirs.  There were all kind of ideas I was exposed to in the public school system that my family's beliefs conflicted with, but my parents explained the difference and engaged in discussion about it instead of railing against the evil government system that was undermining their ability to teach their children their values.   

If you think your children can't learn in an environment that may teach them some things you don't agree with, then maybe you don't have enough faith in your children or in the strength of your belief system.


----------



## elder999 (May 18, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I came up through the American public school system. I had a health class with sex-ed in 7th grade (in southern California) and in 10th grade (in southern New York). I don't know why anyone would see the need for sex-ed for 3rd graders, but I also don't see the reason to object to it for middle or high school. I've been there, _no_, these classes do not encourage sexual activity. Yes, they are mostly biology and statistical info classes. No, they do not encourage 'experimenting'. I also come from a religious family that believes in and encourages abstinence. I was abstinent until I got married at 31. I attribute this to both a belief system that promotes abstinence _and_ an education on the biology and the social realities of sex..


 
I also had sex-ed in 5th grade, and then in "health class" through middle school. The 5th grade class was segregated by gender, and mostly dealt with puberty, and the classes in middle school were progressively more detailed-though mostly biological and sociological in nature. In fact, I think we dealt with drugs in health class more than anything else. Oh, and I am, as some have pointed out, kind of _old_-I think those classes predated me by quite a bit,. though.

I also came from a religious family, and practiced abstinence _right up until I had a clear opportunity to do otherwise._ :lol:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2009)

It is obvious that people do not see the political ramifications of state-mandated sexual education training.  Let me try a couple comparisons.

First, let's say that yes, '_abstinence_' as taught by parents absolutely does not work.  And we perceive a societal problem - children coming up with STD's, some of them incurable, and pregnant as well.  As a society, we decide '_something must be done_' and parents seem to have abdicated.

So far, that's more-or-less the situation we're in, according to many.

But let's take a slightly different tack.  Instead of trying to deal with the results of children being exposed to sexual pressure in every public venue, let's try to deal with the fact that they're exposed to these things.  From billboards to magazine ads to television shows marketed at children but with adult sexual themes, let's ban them.  No more of them.  No using models who look like they haven't been through puberty yet, no more 'young adult' novels that are heavy on the bodice-ripping, no more magazine ads or stories talking about how to be sexually attractive or what 'position he desires'.  Let's get rid of all of that.

Now, I know about the VCHIP, but I really have to reject that, because, as ya'll have pointed out, parents abdicate their role in raising their children, so they won't use it.  And it only shuts out Dawson's Creek or whatever the latest teenage humpathon is.

It does appear that various right-wing religious groups have tried to ban such things in the past.  And the result is a howl of indignation by people who see it as an infringement on their liberties, on their right to decide what their kids are exposed to for themselves.  How dare the state intrude on their rights as parents!

Hmmm.

OK, let's try something different.  Ignore the sex ed thing for a moment, and let's turn our attention to another pressing societal danger amongst children.  I am speaking of childhood obesity.

Now clearly, we are getting fatter as a nation (USA).  We stuff our fat faces and we don't exercise, and our kids don't either.  And that's a danger to our nation.  From having to actually produce more food for lard-asses like myself to eat, we also have to deal with serious diseases at a much younger age than has ever been seen before.

So just like sex-ed - here we have a problem that parents have failed to address.  And it has huge (pardon the pun) social ramifications.

So we should use the same logic as that which gave us state-mandated sexual education classes.  We should usurp the parent's role in feeding their children, and we must feed the children breakfast, lunch, and dinner.  We'll need some laws to keep parents from feeding them after they get home from school, of course, but I can see the benefit.  The government knows what food is best for us - left to themselves, kids will eat Big Macs morning, noon, and night, and parents clearly won't stop them.  So the government will mandate health care systems that include healthy food by law, and children in public schools will be required to partake of it.

See how we solved that problem with the aid of the government?  I'm liking this already.

Let's take another, related problem.  Physical fitness.  We have gym classes, sure, but we don't force children to obtain a certain level of physical fitness.  We just make them go to class.  So perhaps we ought to institute a mandatory physical fitness training program, and assign specially-trained educators to require children to run, do situps, pushups, climb obstacles and so on - by law.  They cannot pass from one class to another unless they pass these physical tests as well as the usual book learning stuff.  We'll monitor their fitness level, and if it falls off track, we'll book them for mandatory summer training as well, or before and after school.  Never mind what parents want, they're clearly dropping the ball here.

You know, how many kids are teased because their parents don't have money to buy them nice clothes, or refuse to do so?

Well, I think you can see where this can go.

People who discover societal issues, real or imagined (sexual activity amongst children is real, fat kids is a real problem, out-of-shape kids are real problems) and therefore think the government should take control are, as we call them in the USA, liberals.  They tend towards the socialist label because that is what socialism is - government fixing problems for people who are presumed not to be able to.

State-mandated sexual education in public schools seems reasonable on the surface.  There is a real problem, and yes, it is clear that not enough parents are doing anything about it.  As a conservative, I shy away from the automatic answer that if parents can't or won't fix the problem, the government must.

I can't think of anything else to say about it at the moment.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 18, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> BTW the wish for children to grow up to be well rounded, independant and responsible ADULTS comes from my Orthodox Jewish background not any political wish to see them as some sort of hippie.


So are you telling us that orthodox Jews teach children that abortion, contraception of all kinds, homosexuality, multiple partners and anal sex are ok as long as your protected and btw you can also be abstinate. That sounds strange to me. By orthodox, I would think that it would be the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking the piss, (well maybe a little), but I'm sure there's nothing about the above in the Torah.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 18, 2009)

tellner said:


> Abstinence-only sex education is stupid. That's all there is to it. Encouraging kids to wait? Certainly. But the Cult of Virginity has lead to higher rates of STDs, higher rates of early pregnancy and higher divorce rates. It's based on the idiotic notion that telling children lies will make them wiser and that the girls - the rules are different for boys - can turn off their sexuality until it's time to sell it to the highest bidder.
> What you can do is give them good information so that they can make rational choices and encourage them to be responsible. And yes, that means that if they are aware enough to realize that they aren't going to be responsible about "Tab A, Slot B" intercourse they should consider alternatives.


 
Funny you seem to want to blame Abstinence only sex education for those higher rates, I blame poor parenting, child neglect, and child abandonment for those things. I would be willing to bet massive amounts of money that if you look at the numbers alot deeped on child pregnancy, sexual activity, and STDs, that you will find the numbers are lean alot more towards those single parent families, or families that parents basically expect the state to raise their kids.

Don't get me wrong, all the information is great when trying to get someone to truely understand a thing...in this case  the dangers of sexual activity... but the problem is alot deeper then simply handing out some condoms and morning after pills likes its pencils and paperclips.

Last I looked we call them children for a reason, and we have laws that forbid them to participate in certain activities, require parents to provide certain aspects to protect them, and treat them differently then adults in general. So education alone will not do the trick. It is a good start though.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the USA, 'sex ed' often consists of both the former (biology) and the latter (behavior) as well as given free condoms, encouragement to get out there and get bizzy, and pep-talks about how it is OK to want to have sex with one of the same sex or what-have-you and in fact, they ought to do it. The 'behavior' part is the part that I believe usurps parent's rights.
> 
> 
> quote]
> ...


----------



## Carol (May 18, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I blame poor parenting, child neglect, and child abandonment for those things. I would be willing to bet massive amounts of money that if you look at the numbers alot deeped on child pregnancy, sexual activity, and STDs, that you will find the numbers are lean alot more towards those single parent families, or families that parents basically expect the state to raise their kids.



I agree with you.  However, I also think this article from the New Yorker has a fair point in that there are teens from an evangelical background that are getting pregnant because they believe that condoms are something that the slutty kids use.

Red Sex, Blue Sex - Why do so many evangelical teenagers become pregnant?


Granted, the article asks why are "so many evangelical teenagers" getting pregnant. I don't know how much "so many" is.  I also don't know how to compare the pregnancy rates for teens like Bristol Palin vs. pregnancy rates for teens from broken homes.  But I do think this is one facet of a complex and multi-faceted issue that is not going to be easy to solve.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Bill, this is the same in the UK. It was before I took A-Levels in '93 anyway. I attended a whole term of MANDATORY sex ed in 5th Form (10th grade). Abstinence was mentioned, but the majority of the class consisted of demonstrations with condoms on cucumbers, it's ok to have sex, that mutual masturbation is freferable, and advise on STDs. Guess what there were so many pregnancies that the school had a nursery. Great job at prevention.
> 
> A few friends that I had gone to middle school with attended Cardinal Heanan High School in Leeds. They didn't teach sex ed at all and yet chilsd pregnancy was unheard of at the school. What gives?



Well, I don't think it is always down to parents and abstinence teaching.  I'm perfectly willing to admit that kids will have sex regardless of what their parents say, and to admit that young children contracting STDs and getting pregnant is a serious social issue.  As had been said in this thread, kids of 'good' families turn up preggers, and kids of 'untaught at home' families manage to avoid the rough and stay on the green until marriage.  I think in general, it's all over the place.

What I disagreed with initially was the insistence that _'abstinence doesn't work'_.  It is repeated like a mantra, but the only _'proof'_ I see are statistics that are highly suspect (and fairly easily-demolished) and no actual programs of pure abstinence whereby such claims might be put to the test.

My secondary disagreement was purely on libertarian terms.  I have a problem with a _'nanny state'_ assumption that if a problem isn't being addressed by parents, and the problem is in fact real, then the government must step in, usurp rights, and take over for the good of us all.

We saw it after 9/11.  Conservative and liberals alike in the USA were terrified, and demanded that the _'government do something'_.  Well, government did (no surprise there) and now we have onerous infringements on our liberties, with more coming quickly.  All in the name of _'we suck, protect us!'_


----------



## Twin Fist (May 18, 2009)

bottom line, the public school system often fails at teaching people how to READ, I doubt thier ability to handle something as important as sex.

Not to mention, back when we led the word in education, we didnt have sex ed.

schools can only be good at so many things, leave sex ed to the parents I say.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 18, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I agree with you. However, I also think this article from the New Yorker has a fair point in that there are teens from an evangelical background that are getting pregnant because they believe that condoms are something that the slutty kids use.
> 
> Red Sex, Blue Sex - Why do so many evangelical teenagers become pregnant?
> 
> ...


 
Who said anything about religion? I didn't I know plenty of people that are hypocritical when it comes to their religion and how they actually live. I would be curious to see numbers on how many of those fit the scenario I laid out. I know plenty of people that cling to religion for one thing then throw it away for another. I simply said parents that actually teach their kids, raise their kids, guide their kids, etc.


----------



## blindsage (May 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It is obvious that people do not see the political ramifications of state-mandated sexual education training. Let me try a couple comparisons.
> 
> First, let's say that yes, '_abstinence_' as taught by parents absolutely does not work. And we perceive a societal problem - children coming up with STD's, some of them incurable, and pregnant as well. As a society, we decide '_something must be done_' and parents seem to have abdicated.
> 
> ...


Not a big fan of censorship, but I think there are limits so maybe some things should be banned, but how about working on children's self-esteem, or educating them on marketing methods and how images are used to sell things, as a life skill?



> Hmmm.
> 
> OK, let's try something different. Ignore the sex ed thing for a moment, and let's turn our attention to another pressing societal danger amongst children. I am speaking of childhood obesity.
> 
> ...


This analogy would only work if you were talking about nutrition classes which are usually included in those same health classes that teach sex-ed. Your example of forcibly dictating what they ate at school and home would only correlate if schools were dictating the students sex lives and having them engage in sex, and demonstrating the 'right' way to do it. A little far fetched.



> See how we solved that problem with the aid of the government? I'm liking this already.
> 
> Let's take another, related problem. Physical fitness. We have gym classes, sure, but we don't force children to obtain a certain level of physical fitness. We just make them go to class. So perhaps we ought to institute a mandatory physical fitness training program, and assign specially-trained educators to require children to run, do situps, pushups, climb obstacles and so on - by law. They cannot pass from one class to another unless they pass these physical tests as well as the usual book learning stuff. We'll monitor their fitness level, and if it falls off track, we'll book them for mandatory summer training as well, or before and after school. Never mind what parents want, they're clearly dropping the ball here.


When I was in school there were fitness goals, we didn't just play dodge ball or stand on a wall.



> You know, how many kids are teased because their parents don't have money to buy them nice clothes, or refuse to do so?


This is why some schools have implemented uniforms.



> Well, I think you can see where this can go.
> 
> People who discover societal issues, real or imagined (sexual activity amongst children is real, fat kids is a real problem, out-of-shape kids are real problems) and therefore think the government should take control are, as we call them in the USA, liberals. They tend towards the socialist label because that is what socialism is - government fixing problems for people who are presumed not to be able to.


This is not socialism, but that is besides the point. Your point is cheapened by bad examples, and weak logic. You educate children on sex because it benefits them. You educate them on nutrition because it benefits them. You engage them in physical activity because it benefits them. In school, you don't teach them which kind of sex is right or wrong. You don't teach them that all consumption of sugar is evil. You don't teach them that those who have glandular disorders are bad. You give them knowledge and engender capacity.



> State-mandated sexual education in public schools seems reasonable on the surface. There is a real problem, and yes, it is clear that not enough parents are doing anything about it. As a conservative, I shy away from the automatic answer that if parents can't or won't fix the problem, the government must.


So, what do you offer as an alternative when parents are failing their children. I'm not saying the government is necessarily the answer, but what alternatives are you presenting?


----------



## Flea (May 18, 2009)

[yt]mTMlZSKEu-Y[/yt]


----------



## Stac3y (May 18, 2009)

Flea said:


> [yt]mTMlZSKEu-Y[/yt]



I really wish I could thank you twice, Flea.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 18, 2009)

It amazes me that most of you people are so willing to hand responsibilities for your kids to the state. I am with Bill on this 100%. Parental rights are being infringed upon more and more. It seems that schools can teach evolutionary THEORY to students all day long, but mention intelligent design once and the liberal scream foul, to hell with what parents decide. Then schools teach sex ed without a care for what parents believe is morally correct for their child. Bill has never once said that teaching sex ed is wrong. What he did say is that certain facets of sex ed should be taught at home, at the discression on parents. Where is the foul?

Now there is legislation to make unfettered abortion legal for minors, WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. Of course Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are fine with this. What this all amounts to is that parents rights are gradually being stripped away. 

If sex ed is being taught the way it is. As a gun owner I think that children should be taught firearms classes at school. At one time or another in their lives they will be exposed to firearms, so maybe we should by pass what parents think and teach firearms classes. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama will be on with that one.

By the way, abstinance is a good place to start with sex ed. Take drug use for example. Should we teach kids that they should not use drugs (abstinance)? Or should we teach them that if they do decide (and it's their choice) they should use a clean needle? Should we teach them the safest way to inject it as to not do vascular damage? Should we teach them to prepare their own heroin, as to not get suspect dope that maybe cut with house hold cleaners? Or should we teach them that it is safer to "chase the dragon" than to inject? I would prefer to tell them not to do it at all. Then there is No chance of getting addicted. NO chance of a wasted life. No chance of spending vast amounts of money on rehab. But that's just me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Not a big fan of censorship, but I think there are limits so maybe some things should be banned, but how about working on children's self-esteem, or educating them on marketing methods and how images are used to sell things, as a life skill?



Sounds like a great idea.  Seriously.



> This analogy would only work if you were talking about nutrition classes which are usually included in those same health classes that teach sex-ed. Your example of forcibly dictating what they ate at school and home would only correlate if schools were dictating the students sex lives and having them engage in sex, and demonstrating the 'right' way to do it. A little far fetched.



I don't think it is so far-fetched.  Some state-mandated sex education already include demonstrations on 'how to do it' with a condom and a banana, and soft-core films are shown in places like the UK, including live footage of a teenage girl giving birth.

Then they hand out condoms and in some state, girls can ask for contraceptives while still under the legal age for consensual sex, and the law says the school cannot even notify the girl's parents.

I'm not sure how much more explicit it needs to be that according to the school, sex is A-OK, get bizzy, here's some condoms, have fun.



> When I was in school there were fitness goals, we didn't just play dodge ball or stand on a wall.



Could you get flunked for failed to climb the rope?  That's what I'm talking about.



> This is why some schools have implemented uniforms.



Not very many, but yes, some have.  I think eliminating gang signs and so is also a goal.



> This is not socialism, but that is besides the point. Your point is cheapened by bad examples, and weak logic. You educate children on sex because it benefits them. You educate them on nutrition because it benefits them. You engage them in physical activity because it benefits them.



Well, there we disagree.  I have not found any constitutional basis for forcibly overriding a parent's right to raise their child as they see fit because "it benefits" the child to do so.  If it was so, we'd be not so far from "1984," with children taken from their parents because it benefits them.  "It takes a village to raise a child" and so on.  Yeah, that's pretty much socialism.



> In school, you don't teach them which kind of sex is right or wrong.



But that's a problem for me.  I don't want children taught in public schools that homosexuality is just as acceptable as heterosexuality.  That is for parents to decide.  And the school just goes ahead and does it.



> You don't teach them that all consumption of sugar is evil. You don't teach them that those who have glandular disorders are bad. You give them knowledge and engender capacity.



Even if their parents don't want them exposed to that and believe it is not the school's business.



> So, what do you offer as an alternative when parents are failing their children. I'm not saying the government is necessarily the answer, but what alternatives are you presenting?



That's a false argument.  I have no answer - no alternative - but I'm not arguing in the alternative.  I'm arguing the point of liberty.  There need be no alternative presented when liberties are being suppressed.


----------



## Flea (May 18, 2009)

> I really wish I could thank you twice, Flea.



You are most welcome, shug.

So ... is this really how it's taught over there?  :wink2:


----------



## arnisador (May 18, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> I am with Bill on this 100%. Parental rights are being infringed upon more and more. It seems that schools can teach evolutionary THEORY to students all day long, but mention intelligent design once and the liberal scream foul, to hell with what parents decide.



Those are scientists' screams you're hearing, and while parents can decide what they want to tell their children, they can't decide what is and isn't science.



> Then schools teach sex ed without a care for what parents believe is morally correct for their child.


 
In principle, sex ed. is the facts from a public health point of view.  The facts are outside the realm of morals.



> As a gun owner I think that children should be taught firearms classes at school.



Not a bad idea. But if sex ed. causes sex, what would firearm training cause?



> By the way, abstinance is a good place to start with sex ed.



But that's a particular moral point of view. Not everyone is trying to control their kids' sexuality to that extent. A 17 y.o. who isn't curious about his/her own sexuality is far from typical.



> I would prefer to tell them not to do it at all. Then there is No chance of getting addicted. NO chance of a wasted life. No chance of spending vast amounts of money on rehab.



Oh yeah, the highly successful "Just Say No" strategy that ended the scourge of youthful drug abuse here in the 80s. Thank heavens that's over.


----------



## Big Don (May 18, 2009)

OT:
I continue to read the title as Should _FEDEX _be reformed. I don't know why, but, that amuses the crap out of me.


----------



## Carol (May 18, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Oh yeah, the highly successful "Just Say No" strategy that ended the scourge of youthful drug abuse here in the 80s. Thank heavens that's over.



Is it?  

Local teens learn to "Say It Straight" with the United Way



> Imagine feeling pressured to do something that you dont want to do, but not having the skills to stand up for yourself and say no. Many young people today make unhealthy decisions based on peer pressure, which often leads to such things as juvenile arrests, teen pregnancy, alcohol and other drug use.


----------



## Carol (May 18, 2009)

Big Don said:


> OT:
> I continue to read the title as Should _FEDEX _be reformed. I don't know why, but, that amuses the crap out of me.



LMAO!   

Well, ya know...when it absolutely positively has to be there overnight


----------



## tellner (May 19, 2009)

Here's another thought...

I believe that lying is almost always a bad thing. That includes lying to children. Partly it's a matter of core values which are based on emotion and therefore not subject to logical argument. It's also with an eye towards their future development. If they learn that it's okay for you to lie to them they will believe with some justice that it's alright to lie to others. "It's alright for me to lie to you because I'm bigger and older. It's wrong for you to lie to me," is not a good basis for ethical behaviour in later life.

It also undermines everything else you teach them. When they figure out that you lied they won't believe your good advice later on. If they know that you don't lie to them even - maybe especially - about the little things they're more likely to believe you when you lay the important stuff on them.

That was one of the worst things about the last Administration's Sex Ed policy. Teachers were forced to lie to students. They were forbidden to talk about success rates for contraception or to discuss the simple facts of the pros and cons of AIDS prevention. Districts could and did lose funding for having the temerity to tell the truth. That runs counter to the very notion of education.

Tell them the truth. Teach them to make responsible decisions. If that's unacceptable then please go back to the Taliban or Pyongyang where you belong. The next generation is too valuable to be ruined by delusional liars.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 19, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Those are scientists' screams you're hearing, and while parents can decide what they want to tell their children, they can't decide what is and isn't science.


Theories should remain theories. Tell the kids all about evolution, but at least mention just once that some people believe that the deity created the world. After all theories are just that THEORIES.

By the way, I don't want control of sexuality, especialy by a government with an agenda.

I'm very well aware of the "just say no" campaign. It was begun in England by the Grange Hill tv show and exported to the US. By your reasoning we should just tell the kids to take drugs then should we......You are amusing.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 19, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Not a big fan of censorship, but I think there are limits so maybe some things should be banned, but how about working on children's self-esteem, or educating them on marketing methods and how images are used to sell things, as a life skill?


 
Amen Brother... I'm with you 100% on this.




blindsage said:


> This analogy would only work if you were talking about nutrition classes which are usually included in those same health classes that teach sex-ed. Your example of forcibly dictating what they ate at school and home would only correlate if schools were dictating the students sex lives and having them engage in sex, and demonstrating the 'right' way to do it. A little far fetched.


 
When I was in School... I always hoped for "Sex Ed Lab" and had my Eye on Becky... but alas It never came to pass.  *sigh*


Ya know, FWIW, I dunno how its done all over the place anymore... but as far as the parents having a say... In my day we had to bring a permission slip home and have it signed by our parents, if they didn't we didn't get the class.  It was taught to us in a fairly clinical manner, and we didnt get abstinance speeches OR Condoms for free.  Methods of birth control were discussed, Mainly Condoms, Spermacide and Diaphrams, but these were not demo'ed or encouraged rather, simply explained.  I don't see anything wrong with that type of education, especially given todays climate... and I think anything else should be left to the parents.  (Although, thinking about it... mine NEVER discussed any of that stuff with me.  Hmm. Where the hell did I learn?)


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 19, 2009)

Flea said:


> This reminds me of a curious chapter in my childhood:
> 
> When I was 12 my family had a dinner party and mom passed around a pot of coffee with dessert.  I asked for a cup out of curiosity, and my mother decided to be crafty with some reverse psychology and give me a cup.  What 12yo is going to like coffee, right?  This would save her the trouble of denying it to me later when I _did_ want to drink it.



My 4 year old kid drinks coffee in the weekend. I drank coffee when I was a kid, as did most everyone else in our family.
Why wouldn't kids be allowed to drink coffee?


----------



## tellner (May 19, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Theories should remain theories. Tell the kids all about evolution, but at least mention just once that some people believe that the deity created the world. After all theories are just that THEORIES.



Lad, you really ought to keep quiet about things you know nothing about. It's dead obvious that you have absolutely no idea about what science is or how it's done. If you did you'd be embarrassed to open your mouth and let "After all theories are just that THEORIES" drop out. It displays a truly appalling degree of ignorance, something along the lines of "The moon is more useful than the sun because the moon lights up the night. The sun is out in the day when it's already light." Seriously.


----------



## Tez3 (May 19, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> So are you telling us that orthodox Jews teach children that abortion, contraception of all kinds, homosexuality, multiple partners and anal sex are ok as long as your protected and btw you can also be abstinate. That sounds strange to me. By orthodox, I would think that it would be the other way around.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking the piss, (well maybe a little), but I'm sure there's nothing about the above in the Torah.


 
No I'm not saying that at all,and I have never said that it should be taught, if you read my posts you will find out what I think should be taught and by whom.


----------



## Tez3 (May 19, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Bill Mattocks said:
> 
> 
> > In the USA, 'sex ed' often consists of both the former (biology) and the latter (behavior) as well as given free condoms, encouragement to get out there and get bizzy, and pep-talks about how it is OK to want to have sex with one of the same sex or what-have-you and in fact, they ought to do it. The 'behavior' part is the part that I believe usurps parent's rights.
> ...


----------



## Carol (May 19, 2009)

In a scientific application, a theory is a principle derived from a systematic analysis of a set of facts. It does not mean "scientific guesswork".


----------



## Tez3 (May 19, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Amen Brother... I'm with you 100% on this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

This is how it's still done in the UK despite what some would have you think, there is little time for sex education with the national curriculum. Childbirth and pictures of women giving birth are in the biology class not the sex education. Comdoms aren't handed out probably because it means someone has to pay for them and there isn't the budget for them.


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2009)

A few things, in no particular order.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Sounds like a great idea. Seriously.
> 
> But that's a problem for me. I don't want children taught in public schools that homosexuality is just as acceptable as heterosexuality. That is for parents to decide. And the school just goes ahead and does it.
> 
> ...


 
Bill I understand your completely cogent arguments, from a libertarian and conservative point of view. I don't completely agree with them, or think they're necessary, but I understand them. I don't think they're necessary because in most places that I know of in the U.S., parents still have to give permission for their kids to receive "sex ed," at least, that's how it was for me an my kids, but they've both been out of school for nearly a decade now. Which leads to my question, which is both relevant-given the vehemence of your arguments-and irrelevant, given the forum in which we're engaging them:

_Do you have any kids of your own?_




yorkshirelad said:


> Theories should remain theories. Tell the kids all about evolution, but at least mention just once that some people believe that the deity created the world. After all theories are just that THEORIES.





arnisador said:


> Those are scientists' screams you're hearing, and while parents can decide what they want to tell their children, they can't decide what is and isn't science.


 
*AAAAAAAH! *As I've posted elsewhere at length-this is an incorrect *****umption about what a "scientific theory" is. Theories are not "just" theories-there is a standard for testability and disprovability. "Quantum theory" is testable and disprovable, so it gets to be called a theory, until something comes along and replaces it. "The theory of gravity," has pretty much been tested and proven to the point where it's largely no longer a "theory," it's the* Law* of Gravity. "The theory of evolution" is largely testable and disprovable, and is well on it's way to being *the law.*

Deities, intelligent creation, creationism, are all neither scientifically testable or disprovable. They cannot be theories. At best, they are hypotheses or postulates. Doesn't make them any less valid than they are-just less valid _scientifically_. And, for the last time, as a scientist who believes in a Creator-it isn't the place of science to prove or disprove a Creator, and it isn't the place of religion to fit itself into "science." Thusly, there is no conflict between the two, and, in due time, one or the other will happen to prove the other-or one will disprove the other. In the meantime, the scientifically valid theories belong in public school science class, the others-being *religio*n-_simply do not_.



Cryozombie said:


> Ya know, FWIW, I dunno how its done all over the place anymore... but as far as the parents having a say... In my day we had to bring a permission slip home and have it signed by our parents, if they didn't we didn't get the class. It was taught to us in a fairly clinical manner, and we didnt get abstinance speeches OR Condoms for free. Methods of birth control were discussed, Mainly Condoms, Spermacide and Diaphrams, but these were not demo'ed or encouraged rather, simply explained. I don't see anything wrong with that type of education, especially given todays climate... and I think anything else should be left to the parents. (Although, thinking about it... mine NEVER discussed any of that stuff with me. Hmm. Where the hell did I learn?)


 
As I said-I also had to have permission, and so did my kids.At the time, both back in NY for me and here in NM for my kids, it was largely as you describe. I don't see anything wrong with it either, though I can see the validity in Bill's arguments, from a Libertarian standpoint-just not a practical one, if permission is still required.......
.....andm as I pointed out, my parents discussed all that stuff with me, and I think the world of them, but I went out and did what I wanted to, anyway, like most teenagers


----------



## Stac3y (May 19, 2009)

Just signed the permission slip for my 4th grader to see a film about puberty. Waste of time, for him, as we've already covered that at home, but I'm sure some of his classmates will find it helpful.

BTW, someone (Bill, I think) said that "soft core porn, including film of a teenage girl giving birth" is shown in some schools in England. Film of a teenage girl (or anyone else) giving birth is NOT porn by any stretch of the imagination. More like a horror film. I have seen grown men lose their lunch while watching birthing films. Giving birth is beautiful and natural on the one hand; on the other, it is extremely painful and bloody.

So this brings me to a related topic: in many Catholic schools, kid are shown graphic films of abortions. What do all of you think of that?


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2009)

tellner said:


> I believe that lying is almost always a bad thing. That includes lying to children. Partly it's a matter of core values which are based on emotion and therefore not subject to logical argument. It's also with an eye towards their future development. If they learn that it's okay for you to lie to them they will believe with some justice that it's alright to lie to others. "It's alright for me to lie to you because I'm bigger and older. It's wrong for you to lie to me," is not a good basis for ethical behaviour in later life.
> 
> It also undermines everything else you teach them.



My daughter recently called out the schools and media on that--pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti-drinking messages in a world saturated with alcohol ads and with adults who drink. A textbook treated alcohol virtually as a poison and she found it laughable. We had a long chat about all that--the usual "in moderation" and "more appropriate for adults" and "nothing magic about 21 but there has to be a line somewhere" sort of thing. Luckily she's not interested in alcohol now (but she only just turned 15).


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2009)

Stac3y said:


> BTW, someone (Bill, I think) said that "soft core porn, including film of a teenage girl giving birth" is shown in some schools in England. Film of a teenage girl (or anyone else) giving birth is NOT porn by any stretch of the imagination. More like a horror film.



We watched a film of a woman giving birth in health class when I was in high school. It was awful. It put me off of thinking about sex for oh, nearly 15 minutes. It was that bad!


----------



## jks9199 (May 19, 2009)

_ATTENTION ALL USERS:_

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-jks9199
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 19, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I don't think they're necessary because in most places that I know of in the U.S., parents still have to give permission for their kids to receive "sex ed," at least, that's how it was for me an my kids, but they've both been out of school for nearly a decade now.



If sex-ed were voluntary, or if parents were at least permitted to refuse to allow their children to attend, I'd have no problems with it.

It is not what is taught, or how it is taught, that bothers me as much as when parents are not given the authority to refuse, when condoms are handed out without parent's permission, and most especially when birth control is made available for underage girls by the school, and it is actually illegal for the school to notify parents.  That is a wide and deep usurpation of parental rights, IMHO.



> Which leads to my question, which is both relevant-given the vehemence of your arguments-and irrelevant, given the forum in which we're engaging them:
> 
> _Do you have any kids of your own?_



No, I do not.  However, I pay taxes which fund public schools, I have to live with the consequences of what is taught in public schools, and I am a citizen, entitled to engage in the lively and spirited debate about how public schools ought be run.  So I'm not sure how this is cogent.


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2009)

I see a few more that've jumped on the 'parental rights' bandwagon.  Newsflash folks....for those that're so worried about the govt controlling what we do...they control alot.  You may feel that you should be able to drive 50mph on a road thats designated for 30mph, but you have a choice....obey that 30 or drive the 50 and risk getting a ticket.  The fire marshall controls how many people can be in a particular building.  He sets the limit at 200, but the owner may feel that he can cram in 300.  Sorry, its out of his hands.  

Lets look at this...and this is something that I've seen a few others say in this thread already, but I'll say it again.  What about those parents that teach nothing?  Now their kids have no guidance because its a taboo topic with Ward and June Cleaver, so what happens when little Johnny or Suzie makes a mistake?  What about those parents who have real ****ed up ideas, dont tell their kids anything, and now their 15yo gets pregnant?  Who foots that bill, because I sure as hell dont feel that I should!  IMO, welfare should be limited so the free-loaders dont get a lifetime free ride.  

I have said that the bc pills should be given by a doctor.  Of course, regardless of what mommy and daddy think, once the kid is 18 or 21, if they wanna get them, mom and dad have no more say.  As for the condoms...I suppose folks like Bill think that planned parenthood should shut its doors.  Afterall, you can walk in there and get condoms.  

Come on folks, its no different than when we see a kid well under the legal age to purchase cigs. walking around or standing at the bus stop smoking.  Where did they get them?  Did they break into their parents stash?  Did they have their older brother or sister get them?  Maybe an older friend?  Fact is, if they want them, they're gonna get them, regardless of what Ward and June think.  

Drinking is the same thing.  If the parents ban their child from drinking, the kid is gonna find a way...it happens all the time.  

Guess I just can't understand why people wear the rose colored glasses, think that their innocent glass doll will be innocent forever, nothing bad will happen in the fairy tail land, and they'll never be tainted by the evils of society.  I'd rather educate my kid, and yes, give them the tools and education on proper use, so when that day comes, my daughter doesnt tell me that in 9mos, there will be an addition to the family.


----------



## Lisa (May 19, 2009)

Think back to when you were a kid just for a moment.  Now, I wasn't a bad kid in any sense but damn I had girlfriends getting pregnant, left right and center.  Sex education was just starting.  Free clinics were not as available and girls were terrified that mom and dad would find their birth control.  I had one girlfriend who went on the pill and her parents took it away thinking she wouldn't have sex...WRONG!!! Two months later she was pregnant.  There is a perfect example of good parenting right there.  Stick your head in the ground and tell your kid no, cause they will listen, won't they??

I think it is responsible of the schools to teach sex education and teach the kids to be safe.  Not all of them will be, but hell neither were we when we were kids.

I would rather arm my child with information and teach them how to deal with situations then have them deal with them on their own and make mistakes.  Especially when a mistake means another mouth to feed and changing their life forever.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2009)

you know Lisa, your friend could have exercised just the tiniest bit of self control and said "i dont have birth control, we cant screw" or maybe even "i dont have birth control, use a condom" that she didnt say either of those things just makes her stupid or weak.

NOTHING would change that. No amount of sex ed, nothing


----------



## Lisa (May 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> you know Lisa, your friend could have exercised just the tiniest bit of self control and said "i dont have birth control, we cant screw" or maybe even "i dont have birth control, use a condom" that she didnt say either of those things just makes her stupid or weak.
> 
> NOTHING would change that. No amount of sex ed, nothing



Stupid or weak or naive or wanting love from somewhere or peer pressured or whatever COULD have been changed by sex ed, or at least helped.  Sex ed isn't just about how to use a condom.  It is an environment for teens/kids to be able to see and learn options.  Saying NOTHING would change that is stupid and weak, because we all have the ability to change, if given the opportunity.

How much self control did we all really have when we were young?  How many of us thought "it could never happen to us"

Its nice now that we have lived the lives we have and have the abilities we do now, to look back on others that have made mistakes and simply punch it up to "no self control" as we look down our noses at them and think NOTHING could change that.


Lots of things can change, if only given the right tools to use when we are making our decisions.  I wish I knew then what I know now.  I am not the same person I was years ago.

But I am getting off topic here, for here we are not talking about my girlfriend and her lack of "self control" or her "stupidity and weakness", we are talking about sex education. I for one am all for it. I have a great rapport with my girls but I am sure there are things they don't want to talk to me about or ask me, so they have the classes and even if they learn it but just hearing it, at least they have heard it and can mull it over and hopefully use it in the future.


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> you know Lisa, your friend could have exercised just the tiniest bit of self control and said "i dont have birth control, we cant screw" or maybe even "i dont have birth control, use a condom" that she didnt say either of those things just makes her stupid or weak.
> 
> NOTHING would change that. No amount of sex ed, nothing


 
Yes, I'm sure every young kid is always thinking with the head on their shoulders in the 'heat of the moment.'

Seriously though...education in anything doesn't always mean that the kid is going to use their best judgement.  As I said, my drivers ed teacher as well as my parents told me not to drive like an ***.  Did I always listen?  No, but I never got into a crash due to excessive speed.  

I feel that I was taught well by my parents.  I learned alot thru the mistakes that they made in their day.  My parents never forbid me to go to parties, and I'm sure they knew that somehow, some way, alcohol would be there.  Yet, I never put myself into a position I would regret.  Its that education and lessons that saved me from making mistakes I'd regret later on.  

For all you or I or anyone else knows, maybe those kids had those Ward and June, glass housing living, rose colored glasses wearing parents, that didn't educate their kids or provide them with birthcontrol.  Maybe, just maybe, if they had it, they'd have used it.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2009)

no, not quite

she was ALREADY on the pill, she was sexually educated.

her parents threw them away

no way she didnt know about condoms

she simply made the STUPID decision to have sex and use no birth control

stupid and or weak

sex ed would not have changed that story one bit.


but, lisa is right, that one case is off topic

sex ed if it must be taught, should be limited to diseases, pregnancy, and how to avoid them.

period

no this is ok, and that is ok, no here have some condoms, no here is how you can get ont he pill.

this is the friggin internet age, if some chick wants the pill, she can GOOGLE how to get them. Walmart will sell condoms to anyone, regardless of age.


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> sex ed if it must be taught, should be limited to diseases, pregnancy, and how to avoid them.
> 
> period
> 
> ...


 
OK, so lets refrain from talking about Lisas friend and comment on the task at hand.  Now, going on what you just said in the first paragraph, you included how to avoid the disease and pregnancy.  So...this will include the education on the proper use of birth control.  Yes, demos will need to be done on the proper way to use and apply a condom.  If we want to get technical about this, whether or not the school nurse hands them out, or if they install a dispenser in the bathrooms, the fact remains, yet a fact that some refuse to see, is that kids will get them, no matter how hard parents try to prevent it.  Did you see my post when I mentioned kids who smoke and drink?  

Maybe I'm missing what some here are thinking should/should not be covered in the classes.  If people feel that the nurse should not hand out condoms, fine.  But as we all know, there're other ways to get them.  Whether the kid goes to WalMart, KMart or the grocery store, has big bro or sis get them....whatever, parents need to snap back to the current century, and understand that this stuff is out there and their kids, no matter what the parents think, will get it!  Period!  

I never said that schools should hand out bc pills.  As I've said MANY times, that needs to come from a doctor.  But planned parent hood probably isn't going to turn away the 16yo who comes in to get a few condoms.  And if that same 16yo has a question or 2, I'd bet dollars to donuts the pph staff will answer them.  

Then again, the kids should be provided with a source to go to, if they need advice that they are too afraid to ask of Ward and June.  If no source is available, then the kids will either go on what they feel is right or ask someone else, and for all we know, that other person may not give the best advice.  

I still stand by what I believe....I'd rather have my kid wake me up at 3am and drive to get them from a party, instead of having a drunk friend try to drive them home.  I'd rather have my kid come to me and ask me anything, instead of assuming something or asking someone who may not give the best advice.  To this day, and I'm 35yrs old, my Mother has always said that if there was anything I ever wanted to talk to her about, she would always be there to listen.  I thank God for that and have no shame in saying it either.  And if I had a dollar for all of my sisters friends who'd come to MY mother for advice on something, because they were to afraid to ask their own parents, I'd be a very rich man.  Kinda sad when you have to talk to a friends mom, because you're too afraid of what your own parents will say.


----------



## teekin (May 19, 2009)

Note to All "Chicks"

1. Men need to provide All the condoms, All the time. Make sure to see the sales receipt so you know they are fresh.

2. If you think they are cheap quality and may tear, double up. Don't risk STD and pregnancy. Ignore his whining and he will whine.

3. He will make Alllllll Sorts of promises to avoid wearing a condom, Don't listen, he will lie like a rug. However, there is a small office procedure that a man can have done under local anaesthetic that will go a long way towards this. There are no side effects and minimal risk or would he rather have you assume All the risk?
Not that wonder drugs like Deprovera carries any long term health risks to us "chicks". :rpo:
lori


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> . So I'm not sure how this is cogent.


 

As a one-time single father to a girl going through puberty, I was pretty grateful for sex-ed classes. They couldn't help her pick out a bra, or feminine hygeine products, though, and, _sometimes, neither could_ *I. *:lol:

Have kids, and *you* might be grateful too....:lol:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 19, 2009)

elder999 said:


> As a one-time single father to a girl going through puberty, I was pretty grateful for sex-ed classes. They couldn't help her pick out a bra, or feminine hygeine products, though, and, _sometimes, neither could_ *I. *:lol:
> 
> Have kids, and *you* might be grateful too....:lol:



I will grant you that is a situation I had not thought of.  However, I am married.  My wife and I just were not blessed with children for whatever reason.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> Note to All "Chicks"
> 
> 1. Men need to provide All the condoms, All the time. Make sure to see the sales receipt so you know they are fresh.
> 
> ...




quoted for truth, i agree with every word of this. I would also add "and if you are stupid enough to fall for his line of BS and get pregnant or a disease, look in the mirror. THATS who's fault it is"

and I would also add "BTW guys, dont fall for her crap either. no, you are not the only one, no, she isnt on the pill, no, she does NOT have some medical problem that will keep her from getting knocked up. Unless you want to get a disease or write a check every month for child support, WEAR A FRIGGIN CONDOM"

too much stupidity int he world, not near enough personal responsibility

I am the only one in my family that doesnt have a line of kids scattered behind them. Want to know why? cuz I aint stupid. I use condoms. Always have. I was in the military and went to the PI more times than i can count, never caught anything, know why? CONDOMS

and I didnt need some teacher in class to tell me either


----------



## shesulsa (May 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> quoted for truth, i agree with every word of this. I would also add "and if you are stupid enough to fall for his line of BS and get pregnant or a disease, look in the mirror. THATS who's fault it is"
> 
> and I would also add "BTW guys, dont fall for her crap either. no, you are not the only one, no, she isnt on the pill, no, she does NOT have some medical problem that will keep her from getting knocked up. Unless you want to get a disease or write a check every month for child support, WEAR A FRIGGIN CONDOM"
> 
> ...



My dad said his father took him on a tour of a sanitarium when he started sprouting hair, parading him through the wards where syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, etcetera were eating people alive.  He took him to the druggist and bought him a condom and a shake.  He pointed to the condom and said, "use it ..." then pointed to my father's crotch and said, "or lose it. Better yet, keep it tucked."

Dad got a video for me to watch rather than talk to me ... and mom just scared me to death anyway ... but I was appalled at the lack of information I had when I first went for my own female physical alone.  It angered me.

There are a few of us, TF, who have the conviction to keep it tucked indeed, to wrap it regardless of passion, whose adult sense pre-empts their teens.  Teens can't reason, on the whole, what is right and what is wrong.  It makes them neither weak nor stupid ... it makes them young.

Congrats on being the rarity, I suppose.


----------



## Lisa (May 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> sex ed if it must be taught, should be limited to diseases, pregnancy, and how to avoid them.
> 
> period



Why?  Serious questions here, why should it be limited?  Seems very simple thinking to what is a complex problem.  And it is on subject and not personal.

And for the record, TF didn't offend me with his post, I agree with him to a certain extent but what I don't agree with is the lineal thinking behind it that it HAS to be this way or it HAS to be that.  I am glad he has no kids dragging behind him, I am glad I didn't have any either.  Do I consider myself lucky, nope.  Do I consider myself smart, nope.  I consider myself well informed and with enough sensibility to make a good decision for myself.  I, however, don't believe everyone is capable of that and whatever help we can give them along the way makes our society stronger.


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I will grant you that is a situation I had not thought of. However, I am married. My wife and I just were not blessed with children for whatever reason.


 
I was married to my kids' mom. I'm married again. God forbid anything should happen to your wife, but I _wasn't_ married when my daughter reached puberty......*thank God for *my mom and my sister....:lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2009)

it doesnt have to be rare, thats the point

parents need to STOP trying to be thier kids FRIENDS, and be the PARENTS, be IN CHARGE

make some friggin rules and stick to them. Dont just accept that 'kids will do it anyway" becasue no, they wont, not if you teach them right, dont let them dress like whores or act like whores (for girls) teach them to respect women (for boys), when you catch them watching "friends" point out to them that accordign to the numbers, at least ONE of them had herpes and or genital warts.....

this isnt the past, anyone with a pc can find all the information about sex they could possibly want to know. Hell even PORN stars wear condoms now.

there are no excuses for anyone, ever. Not anymore.

schools cant even manage to teach kids to get a decent SAT score.... i doubt they can handle sex without jacking that up too.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2009)

MJS said:


> I see a few more that've jumped on the 'parental rights' bandwagon.  Newsflash folks....for those that're so worried about the govt controlling what we do...they control alot.



Then add in the media and their peers.



Lisa said:


> I had one girlfriend who went on the pill and her parents took it away thinking she wouldn't have sex...WRONG!!! Two months later she was pregnant. There is a perfect example of good parenting right there. Stick your head in the ground and tell your kid no, cause they will listen, won't they??



By and large, evolution is not going to produce post-pubescent mammals that don't want to have sex. You're fighting genetics if you fight this. But as Richard Dawkins noticed, we work counter to evolution every time we use birth control. Birth control (and education about it) recognizes biological/psychological facts about people while giving them the tools to work with those realities.

Should schools stay out of it because that's govt. interference? Well, does anyone want to endorse a "no welfare" policy for young mothers who are opted-out of sex ed. because their parents took responsibility for it over the govt.?

Public education benefits the public. We opted out of it entierly: We homeschooled our kids (and still do).


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2009)

thats a fair question Lisa, and the answer is simple. yes, i think in simple terms, because it is a simple thing. Its not that complicated. Few things really are complicated.

it should be limited to diseases, pregnancy and how to avoid each. Period. Why? everything else are matter or morality,and schools shouldnt be teaching morality. Period. no "here have some condoms" or 'here is where you can go to get the pill"

There is no need.

GOOGLE

kids use it, trust me.

I just raised a teenage girl. We made rules and she followed them. It wasnt hard.




Lisa said:


> Why?  Serious questions here, why should it be limited?  Seems very simple thinking to what is a complex problem.  And it is on subject and not personal.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> stupid and or weak



Holding every 14 y.o. kid in the country to your high standards ("We mold ourselves in the iron forges of our wills!" -Mr. Han) isn't good public policy.



> if some chick wants the pill, she can GOOGLE how to get them.



Not every "chick" has Internet access at home--certainly, not unrestricted. _Should_ they be speaking with their parents about it? Of course (generally). _Will_ they? Look around.


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I just raised a teenage girl. We made rules and she followed them. It wasnt hard.


 
_Mostly_ followed them, anyway, right? 

I mean, at* best*, you can say "_that I know of_."

(How many rules did you break as a teenager? I know I got away with breaking a few.....)

_edit_:make that *more* than a few. :lol:


----------



## Lisa (May 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> thats a fair question Lisa, and the answer is simple. yes, i think in simple terms, because it is a simple thing. Its not that complicated. Few things really are complicated.
> 
> it should be limited to diseases, pregnancy and how to avoid each. Period. Why? everything else are matter or morality,and schools shouldnt be teaching morality. Period. no "here have some condoms" or 'here is where you can go to get the pill"
> 
> ...



Thanks for the answer TF, I really appreciate it.  I find sometimes you post rather straight from the hip and don't explain your points, bring the hair up at the back of my neck very often, and I have to stop and try and figure out what you mean, hence asking the question, lol.

Oh and congratulations for raising a teenage girl and it not being hard.  I suppose you have to decide what is hard and what isn't, lol.  Overall, I have to say both my kids have been rather easy, doesn't mean I haven't wanted to pull my hair out sometimes, however!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 19, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I was married to my kids' mom. I'm married again. God forbid anything should happen to your wife, but I _wasn't_ married when my daughter reached puberty......*thank God for *my mom and my sister....:lol:



I should have been more clear.  My wife and I have no children, and our ages, we're not likely to, barring miracles, combined with the fact that I live in Detroit and she lives in North Carolina and we see each other a couple times a year (we talk on the phone for at least an hour a night, but you can't get pregnant that way, I'm pretty sure).  If, (as you say, God Forbid It) anything should happen to my wife, there still won't be any kids - for reasons I'd prefer not discussing, but believe me, there is no possibility of children for me, ever.

I've had well-meaning clergy and relatives say _"never say never,"_ but they have no idea what they're talking about.  Pregnancy requires certain things to happen that cannot occur with us, so they will not be happening, and there is no way around that.

Despite that, I still have an interest in the world I live in, and that means I'm still concerned with how children are raised and/or inculcated by the state.


----------



## Carol (May 19, 2009)

A big complaint that I hear about abstinence-only education, is that "it doesn't work"

So...what _does _work?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 19, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> A big complaint that I hear about abstinence-only education, is that "it doesn't work"
> 
> So...what _does _work?



Mark Twain stated that children should be kept in a wooden barrel and fed through the bunghole (the barrel's bunghole, geeze) until they were 18.

Then, of course, the hole should be sealed up.

Seriously, this is how the socialist mindset works.  First, a problem is defined.  It may well be a real problem, as teen pregnancy and teen STD's really are.  Then, it is determined that parents, (or abstinence teaching) for whatever reason, are failing to address the problem.  The next step, in the socialist mind, is to turn the problem over to the government for a solution.

That's why the question is often pitched as one which must be answered, and crafted in such a way that there is only one answer.

The question: If abstinence doesn't work, then what does?
The answer: Whatever the state wants to inculcate as a 'norm'.

The real question(s) are why is it presumed that government can inculcate a child with societal values better than parents, and where did we give the government the right to abrogate parental rights?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2009)

i dont think 'dont be stupid" is a high standard.

I dont think 'dont fall for his crap" is a high standard.

and the friggin LIBRARY has unrestricted internet access, so that doesnt fly either.

No elder she did follow the rules, she as never more than 5 minutes late for curfew, never didnt answer her phone, she called when she had too much to drink, and was still a virgin going into her senior year. By then she was 17 and past the age of consent. and it wasnt hard.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (May 19, 2009)

When I was in school things like Mutual masturbation,Anal sex,use of vibration objects,fetishes were not addressed,Gay orientation was not addressed if Sex Ed is to be provided in schools shouldn't these concepts be taught to produce healthy sexual adults? 

If other sexual practices are taught would the result of teen preganacy drop? Would Teens be more careful during sex?


----------



## Tez3 (May 19, 2009)

Is this a discussion about sex education in schools or a rant about socialism? 
This socialist country (UK) *leaves it to parents to decide* whether their children attend sex education classes which don't show soft porn films in school, that's illegal here btw.The classes are there for those who wish to let their schildren attend, there's no pressure to attend, parents can teach what they want ref sex education.
 In socialist countries where healthcare is free, underage pregnancies do become an issue that everyone worries about, it costs the country money. It costs money to educate all these extra children as well as house them. Bill you don't live in a socialist country, America will never become a socialist country so your bigotry towards socialism is unwarranted in this instance.
Parental rights.... the right to screw your kids up.
http://www.artofeurope.com/larkin/lar2.htm

Talk to your children, teach them everything they need to survive the big bad world, be honest, be brave, explain. Love them then love them some more and then even more.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 19, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> yorkshirelad said:
> 
> 
> > The school btw is the Cardinal Heenan and sex education isn't mandatory in this country. All parents have the right to take their children out of the classes and many do.
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (May 19, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say anything about soft porn films. Why don't you re-read my text Tez. I went to Garforth comp. We were given sex ed as a requirement, inclusive of cucumbers and condoms-fact. I was there you were not.
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 19, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Is this a discussion about sex education in schools or a rant about socialism?



I believe there are elements of both in it.  The question was whether or not, given the 'failure of abstinence', sex-ed should be changed. I  believe it should - it should be abolished.



> This socialist country (UK) *leaves it to parents to decide* whether their children attend sex education classes which don't show soft porn films in school, that's illegal here btw.The classes are there for those who wish to let their schildren attend, there's no pressure to attend, parents can teach what they want ref sex education.



I am glad to hear that, but of course, I don't live in the UK.



> In socialist countries where healthcare is free, underage pregnancies do become an issue that everyone worries about, it costs the country money. It costs money to educate all these extra children as well as house them.



It costs money in semi-socialist countries like the USA, too, witness "Octo-mom."  She draws quite a few public services which we all pay for.



> Bill you don't live in a socialist country, America will never become a socialist country so your bigotry towards socialism is unwarranted in this instance.



The USA may not be a socialist country compared to the UK, but it is rapidly heading that way, it seems to me.  Despite your assurances that the USA will never become socialist, I feel otherwise.

And there is nothing wrong with good old-fashioned bigotry.  Bigotry is intolerance, and I am certainly intolerant of socialism.  The funny thing is, everyone harbors bigotry, and many pretend either they are not bigoted, or that their bigotry is justified and therefore not bigotry.  The biggest proponents of 'tolerance' are liberals, yet ask them about AM talk radio icons like Rush Limbaugh - they want his 'hate speech' banned!  Much tolerance there.  And the bigotry against smokers, and against gun owners, in some cases the obese, and certainly against conservatives - why that's not intolerance at all, because it is justified!

So yes, I'm quite bigoted, against socialism, and I make no bones about it.  Feel free to call me a bigot - I wear the label proudly.



> Parental rights.... the right to screw your kids up.
> http://www.artofeurope.com/larkin/lar2.htm



Well, it would appear you prefer having the state screw them up.  There is some advantage to this?



> Talk to your children, teach them everything they need to survive the big bad world, be honest, be brave, explain. Love them then love them some more and then even more.



A fine thing, and I'm all in favor of it.  I also favor the rights of parents who disagree with this method of informing their children about sex-ed.  Isn't this where we came in?


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 19, 2009)

tellner said:


> Lad, you really ought to keep quiet about things you know nothing about. It's dead obvious that you have absolutely no idea about what science is or how it's done. If you did you'd be embarrassed to open your mouth and let "After all theories are just that THEORIES" drop out. It displays a truly appalling degree of ignorance, something along the lines of "The moon is more useful than the sun because the moon lights up the night. The sun is out in the day when it's already light." Seriously.


Listen mate, I'm very well aware of the evolution of the science of Cosmology, it's been a hobby for quite some time. I believe wholeheartedly in the science and I was as excited about WMAP in '03 as I am today. Combine Princeton and NASA's work with CERN's LHC experiments and you have a sure fire explanation for the beginning of things.

The theories that I am refering to are the causes of the beginning. We know what happened, but we don't know how it happened. Maybe the deity caused it or maybe not. To expel any deity is to make a conclusion that isn't fact. Why tell our children that. 

I can connect my spiritual belief to my scientific believes as Issac Newton did.

Before you make such offensive comments sonny Jim, try to make an effort to understand the basis of my comments.

There is, as I have said before an effort to strip rights away from parents in the US. The liberal agenda proposes to teach children what parents should. Like the idea that science has all the answers and that spirituality is for the naive. Or that it is ok to be promiscuous as long as you are protected. These ideas may be correct, then again they may not be. Let's leave it for parents to teach. 

There have been conversations in 'The Study' where the rights of terrorists have been placed on a pedestal. Now we are talking about parental rights, you don't want to know. Many of you may want a 'Big Brother' state where the government makes our decisions for us, but I for one don't want any of that bolloxology.


----------



## Tez3 (May 19, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I believe there are elements of both in it. The question was whether or not, given the 'failure of abstinence', sex-ed should be changed. I believe it should - it should be abolished.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You have made far too many assumptions. Firstly you say I prefer the state to screw my kids up, what do you base that on? You don't know how I vote, I didn't vote for the Labour government, as I tried explaining to you, I'm a Liberal in the British sense not the American sense these two things are poles apart.socialism and libralism here are two vastly different things, liberals here don't want anything banned, it's a view of private ownership, the least government interference possible, and private property. I suggest you have a look at the differences before you further jump to conclusions about me.
You say you don't live in the UK but feel it's alright to post up things that aren't true about us. You don't know how our sex education is taught, you don't know that soft porn is shown in schools, you assume Europe is all one big socialist state, you couldn't be further from the truth in all cases.
If you are using Europe and the UK in your arguments don't be surprised that we post up that you are wrong in your assumptions in what we do, this will weaken your arguments about what you should do in your own country.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 19, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> There are a few of us, TF, who have the conviction to keep it tucked indeed, to wrap it regardless of passion, whose adult sense pre-empts their teens. Teens can't reason, on the whole, what is right and what is wrong. It makes them neither weak nor stupid ... it makes them young.
> 
> Congrats on being the rarity, I suppose.


If teens cannot reason, why teach them sex ed at all. If they're not going to use a condom when advised, why give the advise. 

I was told by my father from a very early age, you mess up, you pay the price. I was always told what the consequences would be. "You give back chat to your mother or me and you get a clip around the ear". "You get a girl pregnant, you take care of that kid FOR LIFE". I listened, partly through fear, partly through respect. Guess what, to this day I haven't had kids, (thank God). I drink rarely, I don't smoke or do drugs. I train everyday and I work hard. My father was a disciplinarian, I hated him then. I love him now. Children need love and discipline. When the right balance of both is instilled, they (on the whole) won't go wrong. There are some parents who are just worthless, not only as parents but as human beings. We can't do anything about them. What I will say is leave the nurturing to parents and hard FACT education to schools and we won't go far wrong.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 19, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> yorkshirelad said:
> 
> 
> > I know you didn't mention sex films, Bill did,he said soft porn was shown in English schools.You spelled Heenan wrong. and good grief you went to the same bloody school as my other half. You know Oulton?
> ...


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 19, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> You don't know how I vote, I didn't vote for the Labour government, quote]
> I do, Monster Raving Loony party.....Nicely done Tez.


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> The theories that I am refering to are the causes of the beginning. We know what happened, but we don't know how it happened. Maybe the deity caused it or maybe not. To expel any deity is to make a conclusion that isn't fact. Why tell our children that.


 
It isn't within the realm of scientific method to prove_ or disprove_ a deity, "creation" or first causes. Therefore, such things as "iontelligent design" cannot be held out as a "theory" in any way, shape form or fashion. Doesn't mean you can't _believe _them, they just shouldn't be taught in _science_ class.



yorkshirelad said:


> I can connect my spiritual belief to my scientific believes as Issac Newton did.


 
No, *you can't*. Newton did a paper postulating the earliest possible date of the Apocalypse (2060A.D.) It was bad science. 

Isaac Newton had a spiritual ideal of perfect,universal immutable and unbreakable scientific laws-that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. He also believed that Jesus,  the founder of Christianity,was in direct opposition to the goal of science, which he saw as "knowing the mind of the Creator, through understanding His Creation in all its works," so he saw these not necessarily as connected, but a lifelong conflict-hence, his numerous theological tracts, which greatly outnumber his scientific works.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 19, 2009)

elder999 said:


> It isn't within the realm of scientific method to prove_ or disprove_ a deity, "creation" or first causes. Therefore, such things as "iontelligent design" cannot be held out as a "theory" in any way, shape form or fashion. Doesn't mean you can't _believe _them, they just shouldn't be taught in _science_ class.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 If and I say if an intelligent being did create the known universe then that being's work is science. Stephen Hawkings has catagorically said that God does not exist. Some scientists say God does exist. If we don't know, then we should be open to all possiblities, even the possibilities of the faithful. It does no harm to mention ONCE in class that some believe that the deity was the cause. If we do not know the cause, it is a possibility.
The left doesn't want this. They want children to believe that God doesn't exist and that we are the product of happenstance. Because of this, children can therefore put their faith in a 'Big Brother' government and not in God. I for one consider this insideous.

BTW, Newton did indeed unify his spiritual beliefs with his scientific beliefs.He said quite famously "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being...." This is only one uote there are many more if you want me to post them, I will.


----------



## arnisador (May 19, 2009)

Given that he knew that they had tortured Galileo for promoting science, I think his comments must be read in context.


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 19, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Do you think schools or parents in discussing Sex Ed should discuss these alternatives along with abstinence or do you think abstinence alone is enough?



I tried skimming through this thread -- no mean feat, as it has expanded in a short time, and, alas, taken a predictable left-right trajectory.

As I understand it, federal funding for US schools is provided where sexual education focuses on abstinence. In a sense, that's sound, as abstinence is the most effective preventative measure against pregnancy and STDS. Reality is it works 100% of the time only if used 100% of the time. Of course, looking at this through my teacher lens, yes, abstinence should be taught.

However, I would take exception to a national government prescribing curriculum so narrowly. If federal government said, "We'll only fund math, so long as multiplication is taught the best of way of doing it," people would take exception. Similarly, health education is about information, options and making choices. Those choices ultimately should be informed by parents and their communities.

Should the schools have a role? I think they should. As much as my wife and I endeavored to inform our son on sexuality, the reality is that he went to school and to parties and on dates with lots of kids from the same community. Where other parents cannot or will not provide a range of information, we depend upon the school to do so.


----------



## elder999 (May 19, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> If and I say if an intelligent being did create the known universe then that being's work is science.


 

Wha, wha, *what? *:lol:



yorkshirelad said:


> Stephen Hawkings has catagorically said that God does not exist.


 
If he did, he shouldn't have.



yorkshirelad said:


> Some scientists say God does exist.


 I'd be one of them. My good friend and colleague, Nobel Prize winner Bill Phillips is another. Here's what he says on the subject:



> One of the things we do as physicists," says Phillips, "is measure what we call &#8216;fundamental constants of nature'&#8212;things that determine numerically how things work. Life wouldn't have been possible if those constants had been a little different&#8212;and I mean infinitesimally different. The Earth wouldn't be here. The sun never would have formed. Stars never would have come into being. Plenty of scientists have come up with alternative arguments for why things are. One of the most popular ones at the moment is that there are a gazillion universes, and we just happen to be in the one with the right constants. But *it's a completely unsupported hypothesis&#8212;perfectly reasonable, but unsupported."*
> _So what about the hypothesis that the reason we're the way we are is because God wanted a universe in which people would develop who could have meaningful relationships with each other, and with God? "*Well, for me,"* Phillips is convinced, *"that's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis too*."_


 
Please not that he didn't use the word "theory"; he said "hypothesis," and there is a difference.



yorkshirelad said:


> If we don't know, then we should be open to all possiblities, even the possibilities of the faithful. It does no harm to mention ONCE in class that some believe that the deity was the cause. If we do not know the cause, it is a possibility.


 
It shouldn't be mentioned in science classes,_ because it's not science._



yorkshirelad said:


> BTW, Newton did indeed unify his spiritual beliefs with his scientific beliefs.He said quite famously "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being...." This is only one uote there are many more if you want me to post them, I will.


 

His thoughts about "creation" and God are shared by many. He saw his scientific inquiry and goals as in conflict with religion, though. Additionally, he was something of a heretic, in that he was an antitrinitarian. The reason for his delving into alchemy and astrology, as well as setting the foundation for physics, had a great deal to do with his religious beliefs and philosophy. His writing much, much more about theological subjects were an attempt to resolve what he saw as a conflict-and the are full of conflict-and it was a life long one. He didn't unify his scientific beliefs and spirtual beliefs at all-though he may have achieved a degree of religious harmony by resolving for himself that the laws of the universe were indication of a creator's hand. 

"Intelligent design" is not a scientific theory, and has no place in science class. It's completely appropraiate for mention history or social studies. Civics perhaps, if anyone teaches it anymore. It is scientifically unsupportable as a theory, _for the time being._



yorkshirelad said:


> This is only one uote there are many more if you want me to post them, I will.


 
Please don't-this has been somewhat diverting, but I've read a great deal of  Newton several times over, often in Latin. In any case, it's only marginally relevant. Start another thread if you like.


----------



## tellner (May 20, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> A big complaint that I hear about abstinence-only education, is that "it doesn't work"
> 
> So...what _does _work?


 
Comprehensive sex education which includes the actual mechanics of reproduction, frank discussions about contraception, honest treatment of the facts about STDs and how to reduce ones risk, and an acknowledgment that not everyone will be absolutely celibate until the Church and State give you a license to ****.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2009)

got anything other than your.....opinion to back that up?


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> _._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Of course he unified his spiritual beliefs with his scientific beliefs. The quote I gave in my last post was from his masterpiece "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica." 

You are correct that he did not believe in the trinity. He believed devoutly in Jesus, but considered him an emissary as oppossed to the Son of God. He did believe that God created the universe, was omnipotent and omniscient. He also believed that God intervened from time to time in universal affairs from time to time (paths of comets )ect. 

To Newton it was a given that God was the creator and had unified his scientific reasoning with his spiritual beliefs.

BTW his religious writings were not because of some conflict between his science and his religion. He wrote about his religion because he believed in it.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 20, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Given that he knew that they had tortured Galileo for promoting science, I think his comments must be read in context.


By "They", I'm sure you are refering to the Catholic Church. Sir Isaac came after the reformation, he was born into the Anglican church. What we know about Newton is that he wasn't a believer in the Trinity, but he wholeheartedly believed in God and Jesus as an emissary. He wrote a great deal about the scriptures and his personal faith in God.


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2009)

In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble found evidence that the universe is expanding, a finding that lead to the scientific theory of the Big Bang.  At the time the theory was presented, there were many scientists that were skeptical  because they thought the theory was too religious...seemingly too close to "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth"

Stephen Hawking (who also wrote a book entitled God Created The Integers) mentions God many times, favorably and respectfully, in his book A Brief History of Time.  This was published in the late 1980s.  In the book, he writes "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

Hawking himself has stated that he is not showing that God does not exist. What Hawking is saying is that God is not a necessary condition for the creation of our universe.  

Yet, his quote has been used by religious and atheistic groups alike as a statement of "There is no God"  Which is not correct.

After all, someone had to create the integers...


----------



## MJS (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> quoted for truth, i agree with every word of this. I would also add "and if you are stupid enough to fall for his line of BS and get pregnant or a disease, look in the mirror. THATS who's fault it is"
> 
> and I would also add "BTW guys, dont fall for her crap either. no, you are not the only one, no, she isnt on the pill, no, she does NOT have some medical problem that will keep her from getting knocked up. Unless you want to get a disease or write a check every month for child support, WEAR A FRIGGIN CONDOM"
> 
> ...


 
So, because this worked for you, you're assuming it would also work for everyone else? Sorry, dont buy it.  The possibilities are endless, as a) it could just be great common sense on your part, b) it could be because you, without parental input, just learned from your siblings mistakes, c) you got parental input and you were smart enough to take it, d) you learned from another source, other than parents or siblings.

The above situation is one that many should heed.  I mean, remember whne I said that there're some parents with ****ed up values, where the mom of the family got prego at 15, and thinks nothing of her daughter running around getting prego, her son having sex with girls getting them prego.  Happens all the time.  Sadly in those cases, common sense is NOT used by the kids or the parents.


----------



## MJS (May 20, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> If teens cannot reason, why teach them sex ed at all. If they're not going to use a condom when advised, why give the advise.
> 
> I was told by my father from a very early age, you mess up, you pay the price. I was always told what the consequences would be. "You give back chat to your mother or me and you get a clip around the ear". "You get a girl pregnant, you take care of that kid FOR LIFE". I listened, partly through fear, partly through respect. Guess what, to this day I haven't had kids, (thank God). I drink rarely, I don't smoke or do drugs. I train everyday and I work hard. My father was a disciplinarian, I hated him then. I love him now. Children need love and discipline. When the right balance of both is instilled, they (on the whole) won't go wrong. There are some parents who are just worthless, not only as parents but as human beings. We can't do anything about them. What I will say is leave the nurturing to parents and hard FACT education to schools and we won't go far wrong.


 
I dont buy into the whole using just fear as education.  IMO, an answer or reason why kids should not do this or that, is required to help and give a better understanding.  If this is not done, well, let me use the martial arts as an example...

You're in class learning a kata.  Teacher shows you 3 moves and you ask what they're for, what applications they have, etc.  The reply is.."Well, umm....you do those moves because...........................................................................................................because thats the way the kata is done."

Doesnt sound like a good reason does it?  Maybe, if the teacher said, "Well, the first move can be blocking a punch, it can also be a defense against a lapel grab, and you're now putting them into an arm lock.  The 2nd are 3rd moves, are defending against 2 attackers, 1 trying to punch you and the other trying to kick you."

Option 2 sounds much better.  So instead ofa parent JUST using fear or JUST saying dont have sex, a reason why, a list of risks, etc. should be added.

Just my .02.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2009)

Whether one believes in a god/creator or nothing, the problem remains of what we tell the children. I have the feeling, a very uneasy one, that children/teenagers aren't actually liked by some people and are treated as some sort of wild creature that has to be beaten, either for real or metaphorically, into submisson.
If the state is providing the schooling for free you would expect the school to be run along the lines the state wishes, if the school is a private one you would expect it to be run along the lines of the founder. America being the capitolist foundation that it is, I would have thought that if you don't like what one school is teaching you would simply find one you do or take the child out of school and teach them yourself. I don't see how politics really come into it.
If everyone worried more about their own children and less about others it would be a better place for sure. I've always noticed that when people rant on about what children should or shouldn't do or be taught or how they should behave, there's always these mysterious 'others' who are being criticised, it's never the ranter who's at fault.
Yes, there are underage girls having babies but there's far more who aren't.
For every child going off the rails there's thousands who aren't.
The vast majority of children are, as they have always been, normal, reasonably behaved, studious, fun loving kids unburdened by thoughts of growing up just yet.
Parental rights...... tbh this sounds as if children are someones property instead of being the gift they are, they are only loaned to us, for us to care and nurture not to have as a right or a trophy. Always, always the thought should be what's right for the child not what's right for me. Children are precious, every damn one of them. Around the world we hear of child slaves, child brides, child soldiers and child prostitues. There's abuse sexual, physical and mental, starvation, war and famine. Children are dying and suffering everywhere and among us affluent...yes compared to many... people we argue whether children should be taught the facts of life, what a luxury! Many children around the world learn the facts of life early, that life is short, brutish and nasty. So - perhaps a little perspective here?
If you have children the best advice given here by a few wise heads, talk to your children. Find out what the sex education is if any at their school, talk to your children about it and explain how you view things. Put yourself in their shoes, it does wonders. Oh and don't make such a drama out of it all.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2009)

as Ron White put it:

You Cant Fix Stupid

no amount of sex ed will get stupid people to be smart, or irresponsible people to suddenly act right.

like I said: Diseases, pregnancy, and how to prevent both, INCLUDING abstaining. And NOTHING else. Thats what it should be. if you have to reform it, like I said, take them to the welfare office. Take them to see crack whores. Whip out the medical text book and show them infected stuff looks like. Take them to meet someone DYING from cervical cancer because she got HPV

it is all about MISSION. Civilians have a hard time grasping the concept of "mission" for example, if you think the mission of ex ed is to make sure teens have a good sex life, you might be stupid.

if you think the mission of sex ed should be to make sure teens dont catch disease, or get pregnant, you might be onto something.

now what is the ONE way to make sure one doesnt get pregnant or catch a disease? and that just so happens to be the one thing that the social "reformers" want to leave out.....


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> as Ron White put it:
> 
> You Cant Fix Stupid
> 
> ...


 

Mission....to carry out a successful mission one needs good intel, thats why there are in depth briefings before missions, good hard facts and all available options are the key.
If you are going to put it into military terms it's still the best thing to go over with your children all the facts and discuss options with them. Knowledge is power.
Speaking from a female point of view it may be an idea to teach the males how to actually make love to a woman....so many, many of you get it so wrong.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2009)

nope, screw that.

If i had to learn on my own, so do they....


----------



## tellner (May 20, 2009)

More than just my opinion Twinnie?

Well, there's an entire professional literature on the subject. I suggest starting with the Guttmacher Institute. They've been producing real peer-reviewed research on the subject for decades. But it's made up of icky things like "facts" and "research". It doesn't mention your Imaginary Invisible Sky Friend and doesn't assume its conclusions and demonize anyone who disagrees. It also uses big words. So you probably wouldn't like it.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> nope, *screw* that.
> 
> If i had to learn on my own, so do they....


 
intentional pun?
I wasn't thinking of the mens benefit lol, it was to save all those girls having to put up with the inept fumblings so beloved of men. If people knew how to make love properly it may also cut down on teen pregnancies as they would actually know whats what, none of this 'you can't get pregnant first time, can't get pregnant if you do it standing up' stuff, this goes for all ages not just teens.
In the 1980's a friend of mine, one of twelve children from Eire said it wasn't till her mother got a new doctor that she realised she didn't have to go on having babies. She simply didn't know and she was in her forties ( though she looked ten years older and had multiple health problems through having so many pregnancies by then) that she could use contraception. Sex education isn't just for teens it's for everyone and is for life.
Sex education is a huge subject, apart from contraception, how many people trying for a family know the steps they should take to ensure a healthy pregnancy and birth? shouldn't that be taught too? 
One of the best classes I've seen was where teenagers were taught how to care for babies, this had two benefits, it put a lot of them off having babies too young and it gave them skills to deal with babies when they did decide to have them. Babies don't come with handbooks and in these days of scattered families new mothers need all the help they can get.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2009)

when have I mentioned religion, or my beliefs in this thread? When have I said that God had anything to do with my thoughts on this subject?

oh thats right, i havnt and you are just making stuff up.

AGAIN



tellner said:


> More than just my opinion Twinnie?
> 
> Well, there's an entire professional literature on the subject. I suggest starting with the Guttmacher Institute. They've been producing real peer-reviewed research on the subject for decades. But it's made up of icky things like "facts" and "research". It doesn't mention your Imaginary Invisible Sky Friend and doesn't assume its conclusions and demonize anyone who disagrees. It also uses big words. So you probably wouldn't like it.


----------



## shesulsa (May 20, 2009)

Lisa, I was not defending your post nor you in making the point that youngsters generally are engaging in stupid activities.

There is another factor behind sexual education here we haven't mentioned (I don't think) thus far and that is the issue of abuse.  There have been girls raped and molested without understanding what was happening to them until finally finding out of their own accord.  

In anticipation to the response, I will say this does not make them stupid either ... it means they are damaged and the lack of education did not help them.

And I'm outta here.


----------



## Lisa (May 20, 2009)

I am really rather enjoying this conversation and would really hate for this to go down the toilet. 

I am not moderating here, cause I am involved in the thread but I am asking as another member of this board to not let this get personal.  We are adults after all and don't need this thread to go down hill.

Shesulsa brings up a good point about rape and abuse.  What about those children that are molested and told it is a little secret.  Where are they going to learn, except perhaps school, that it is wrong?

My mom grew up in an abuse household, physically not sexually, she would go to school with bruises and cuts from her mother and the school would do nothing, just turn a blind eye.  Should they do the same in a sexual situation or in a situation like that.

School is suppose to prepare us for what is out there, school is suppose to give us as many tools as possible so we can go out in the community and become healthy productive adults.  If they aren't learning this stuff at home, where are they suppose to learn it?


----------



## arnisador (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> like I said: Diseases, pregnancy, and how to prevent both, INCLUDING abstaining. And NOTHING else. Thats what it should be. if you have to reform it, like I said, take them to the welfare office. Take them to see crack whores. Whip out the medical text book and show them infected stuff looks like. Take them to meet someone DYING from cervical cancer because she got HPV



Some of that is beneficial, but...



> for example, if you think the mission of ex ed is to make sure teens have a good sex life, you might be stupid.



...teens are people too.



> if you think the mission of sex ed should be to make sure teens dont catch disease, or get pregnant, you might be onto something.



No, they're going to be having sex most of their lives and setting a good, positive foundation has value. Often domestic abuse is addressed in these classes...the female orgasm...what to expect in pregnancy...all reasonable.



> now what is the ONE way to make sure one doesnt get pregnant or catch a disease?



Being abstinent (including not being sexually assaulted). It doesn't follow that teaching abstinence works. We teach people how to save for retirement. Do they then simply follow that advice and do it? We teach them all sorts of things they don't do. Knowing the next-best option is important in real life. Staying home may be safer than flying, but I'd still like to know just how much less safe it is, and how to use the emergency exits...


----------



## Grenadier (May 20, 2009)

Folks, this is a pretty good thread, especially over a topic that can get heated in a hurry. I'd like to keep it that way. 

Remember, feel free to throw darts at the message, but keep the darts away from the messenger.


----------



## jks9199 (May 20, 2009)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-jks9199
-MT Moderator-


----------



## MJS (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> as Ron White put it:
> 
> You Cant Fix Stupid
> 
> ...


 


Twin Fist said:


> nope, screw that.
> 
> If i had to learn on my own, so do they....


 
I hate to say it, but I am afraid I find myself disagreeing with you here.  Going on what you're saying, it seems that you're assuming that because you figured out right from wrong and made no mistakes, that everyone else in the world will do the same.  

As I've said, sex ed may or may not work, just like putting on a demo with the PD and FD at the local high school to show what happens when you drive drunk, doesnt always work, but its worth a shot.  At least the message is getting out there, because we all know that in cases like this, its a damned if you do/damned if you dont situation.  Provide sex ed, people *****.  Dont provide it, people *****.

Simply amazing.


----------



## tellner (May 20, 2009)

To recap...

One side believes that ignorance and lies are better than knowledge and the truth. The other side says that knowledge and the truth are better than lies and ignorance.

The ones who are in favor of keeping children ignorant and filling their heads with ******** say it's because they want to guard morality.

The ones who want children to learn responsibility and to guide their lives based on what is real do it out of pragmatism.

Funny, that.


----------



## arnisador (May 20, 2009)

tellner said:


> The ones who are in favor of keeping children ignorant and filling their heads with ******** say it's because they want to guard morality.
> 
> The ones who want children to learn responsibility and to guide their lives based on what is real do it out of pragmatism.



It's more than just pragmatism. I don't believe that someone who is 18 years minus one day should be fully celibate and that someone who is 18 years plus one day should be suddenly free to do as he or she pleases (or whatever age is chosen). Children explore their bodies from infancy. Teens have legitimate sexual feelings. Does anyone think two 16 year olds who are dating shouldn't kiss? How about 'second base'? Where's the line? Sexual education is about more than just intercourse and pregnancy. There's a kid in that class who worries that he or she is abnormal because of excessive masturbation. There's a kid thinking "Am I gay?" There's a kid thinking that his or her partner is exerting too much pressure to go too far too soon and wondering how to handle it and what other kids of the same age are really doing (not just claiming they've done). There are kids substituting sex for intimacy. There are kids already sexually active who lack the knowledge or nerve to insist on proper birth control. There's a kid who is/was abused who hasn't yet been told "It's not your fault." There's a lot of ground to cover.

I'm not looking for my kids to be "Sweet 16 and never been kissed" (well, make that Sweet 18 maybe). That's not normal, typical development in this country. So I see a lot of control and repression of what's natural in discussions like this. Discourage them from having intercourse before they're 18? I'm for that, though half of kids will--that's where some of the pragmatism comes in. But "sex" means more than just "sexual intercourse" here. There are a lot of (formal) virgins doing things that can transmit diseases, cause emotional upheaval, etc. There are kids who can handle it already and kids who really can't. Even kids not having sex are apt to be thinking/worried about it, and could use some info. High school students are hormone-laden, as every teacher knows. Let's not pretend they don't have these feelings, urges, and curiousities. They _should_...and it's _natural_. Natural selection has forced this on them, and for many kids it's pon farr every day for years after puberty hits.

Given the important role sex plays in creating the workers who will fund my Social Security benefits, maybe some time spent on it isn't a bad idea.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 20, 2009)

MJS said:


> I dont buy into the whole using just fear as education. IMO, an answer or reason why kids should not do this or that, is required to help and give a better understanding. If this is not done, well, let me use the martial arts as an example...
> 
> You're in class learning a kata. Teacher shows you 3 moves and you ask what they're for, what applications they have, etc. The reply is.."Well, umm....you do those moves because...........................................................................................................because thats the way the kata is done."
> 
> ...


If you read my quote, you would have noticed that my father EXPLAINED the consequences that would arise due to my actions. I both feared and respected him. I also love the old bugger. He never used "just fear" to keep me in check. That is not at all what I am advocating. 

What I am advocating is leaving sex ed to parents to teach how they see fit.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2009)

The problem with that tho' *YL*, is that many parents do not do so.  

I was going to say "and have historically not done so" but I realised that that was a supposition rather than something I had any evidence for (not a branch of history I have delved).

It is that lack of parental education that has lead to the need for schools to step in to the breach.  I do, however, agree that that has in turn has probably lead to many more parents not fulfilling this responsibility because 'the school will do it'.


----------



## blindsage (May 20, 2009)

I was catching up on this and just never understand why we can't have these debates without resorting to tired, bs assumptions.

The vast majority of people on the 'left' in the U.S. believe in God, and most of them are Christian.

Belief in God doesn't make you unpragmatic.  Most people who argue for sex-ed believe in God, it's in the numbers.

Criticising sex-ed does not necessarily make you ignorant, dogmatic, or naive.

Being for sex-ed does not necessarily mean you are for total Stalinist control of our lives.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2009)

MJS-
no one can really argue that those demo's by the police fire dept encourage drinking. It is pretty clear that the sort of programs some people advocate would in fact encourage kids to experiment. 


teach them INFORMATION sure

MORALS? NOPE

not no but hell no. no way no how is some school teacher gonna try and tell my kids what is or isnt moral.

thats a parents job.

you think kids need information? You must not have any kids if you think that. Trust me, I just raised one, and I caught her googling more than just her bio homework. This aint the 50's anymore. The information is all out there, and they know how to get it.


diseases, pregnancy, how to prevent each.

WHY does anything more need to be taught?



BTW- i was answering tez's joking post about teaching young boys proper technique when I said 'if I had to learn on my own, so they should too"

It was a jest.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2009)

Of course the kids will google for all the information they want, I daresay they could tell us a thing or too but hands up all those that have a headache or an odd pain have been on the internet and realised they have the rarest cancer in the world, two days to live then die in the worst way possible....until they see the doctor!

Teaching the children facts can put their minds at rest, that normal people don't have sex the way it happens in porn films for a start! that sex doesn't have to be violent, that as others have eloquently put it, abuse isn't normal. There's a huge amount of information out there, talking it over with your children helps sift it for what they need, they can ask questions if they need to, it's communicating with your children plus you might learn something and *it shows* *that you care*! Teenagers really need to know that. 
TBH I don't think anyone on here in this thread has suggested that school or teachers should teach morality,only facts.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2009)

Of course not all information is reliable especially when posted by one of my strange Welsh friends, I was on an MMA forum, the thread was about a particular promotion which Ricky had answered,someone posted that he sounded as if he was writing scripts for Kelloggs adverts. Ricky replied and you know someone out there is going to believe this...
BTW English is his second language, Welsh is first hence spelling etc. 

 "_yip, John is right...Kellog is taken from the welsh word for rooster which is ceiliog, and if you look at the kellogs icon on the box it is infact a rooster.
Corn flakes were invented by welsh settlers in the USA as a cure for masterbaiton. the idea was they would fill up a mattress full of corn flakes so if someone wanted to choke the chicken they would be heard and then shamed! but they decided to eat these tasty masterbation cures and make millions of dollers instead"_


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2009)

hetero=homo

thats a MORAL judgment, not a factual one (even tho i agree, but honesty forces me to call it what it is, a moral judgment) 

so Irene, they ARE trying to teach morality

and yes, the PARENTS should be talking to them, not some hack job teacher that is only still employed because the union wont let them get fired.....

FACTS

disease, pregnancy, how to prevent both

everything else is judgment calls, and outside the realm of what the schools should be teaching.

Not to mention, you cant trust a teacher to JUST teach anymore, every other week there is some teacher on the news either screwing a student, or preaching politics

you cant tell me you trust them to NOT inject thier own judgments into it.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> hetero=homo
> 
> thats a MORAL judgment, not a factual one (even tho i agree, but honesty forces me to call it what it is, a moral judgment)
> 
> ...


 
You live in an enormous country, are you saying every teacher in every school is teaching the same thing?
 I bet the Catholic schools aren't for one! Is every teacher in America bad then?
 You live in the greatest consumer society in the world so there must be customer choice, it can't be hard to find schools that meet your standards?


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2009)

One of my students is a public school teacher.

he home schools his kids.

I just got one through high school, after seeing HER teachers, I dont trust any of them.

and no, we dont have the choice of where our kids go to school, the democrats here shoot down school voucher programs (that defere the cost of private schools) so they can force kids to go to crappy public schools.

If you live somewhere like I do, were there is NO private schools, you either home school, or deal with teachers protected by unions.


----------



## Carol (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> One of my students is a public school teacher.
> 
> he home schools his kids.
> 
> ...



Yup.  My niece and nephew "down yonder" were homeschooled until Grade 8.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> One of my students is a public school teacher.
> 
> he home schools his kids.
> 
> ...


 
So here am I in a socialist country who had a choice of four free secondary schools for my daughter plus a lot of private ones rofl! Plus the teachers aren't protected as much as yours are by their union, they can get sacked quite easily.
 All the schools we had to chose from are at a distance but school bus travel was free. I sent my daughter to the joint Catholic/Church of England school and my son to the bigger Richmond school where Lewis Carroll was a former pupil. There's also a secondary school on the Garrison and one further up the road all of which I could have sent my children to.
There were three private schools I considered sending my daughter to, one is a Jewish public school, 'Ali G/Borat' being a famous ex pupil where fees would have been appropriate to my salary and two girls schools, Harrogate Ladies College and Queen Ethelburga's (thought I'd mention the names because it might amuse non Brits!) however my daughter didn't want to board even tho it was just weekly. I could have sent her to my old school but that's in Scotland, too far away. Public schools in the UK are the big private schools such as Eton,Winchester,Harrow, Roedean etc.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2009)

When I went through the school system here, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth , I found it very suitable to my needs and there I learned a wide variety of skills (both vocational and academic). Including Religious Education from an atheist (which is by far the best way to learn about every faith in an unbiased fashion).

Admittedly, I had to learn cooking and sewing at home from my mother as it was a more sexually segregated world then too but it, school, equipped me to make informed choices about what I wanted to do and allowed me to discover what I was good at.

Now it seems schools are geared to squeezing enough results out of pupils to satisfy 'league tables' and whilst the quality of teachers _may_ be the same as in my day they are not allowed to teach any more. Add no discipline and it is little wonder that the kids come out of school fit for nothing but gangs and the dole queue.


----------



## MJS (May 20, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> If you read my quote, you would have noticed that my father EXPLAINED the consequences that would arise due to my actions. I both feared and respected him. I also love the old bugger. He never used "just fear" to keep me in check. That is not at all what I am advocating.


 
My apologies.  Should have read that a bit more careful. 



> What I am advocating is leaving sex ed to parents to teach how they see fit.


 
IIRC, I think I've said that parents are free to teach what they want.  Only thing is, is that it it shouldn't be sugar coated, as I've explained in other posts.   Of course, I also said that there're those parents that a) choose to say nothing because they're afraid to taint their glass doll of a child or b) they themselves see nothing wrong with getting knocked up at 15, in which case, you, me and the rest of the tax payers have to foot the bill, which frankly, I don't think any of us should have to do.


----------



## MJS (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> MJS-
> 1) no one can really argue that those demo's by the police fire dept encourage drinking. It is pretty clear that the sort of programs some people advocate would in fact encourage kids to experiment.
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'll start at the top and work down.

1) I never said that they'd work.  As I said in past posts which apparently were not read, its no different than any other instruction.  We can tell someone to do or not to do something so many times, but if that person chooses to do it anyways, its out of our hands, but at least we made an attempt.

2) Ok

3) Ok

4) Have you been reading my posts about what to do when the parent does nothing?  I see alot of huffy posts about those parental rights, but when asked what kids are to do when their parents do nothing or when their parents condone a 15yo getting knocked up, nobody seems to have a reply.  Hmmmm...go figure.

5) Guess you missed that post too.  I have said in one of these many posts that I don't have any.  What does that have to do with anything?  Of course, if you really read what I was saying, instead of jumping the gun and getting all heated, I've said that yes, there is info out there, however, is what they're getting online the best source?  Kinda like learning TKD or Kaju from a tape.  Come on man, you know what I mean.  I think you're smarter than that.  



> diseases, pregnancy, how to prevent each.
> 
> WHY does anything more need to be taught?


 
I'll let you go back and find the post in which I've already addressed that.  Nevermind, I'll save you the work and direct you to it. 





> BTW- i was answering tez's joking post about teaching young boys proper technique when I said 'if I had to learn on my own, so they should too"
> 
> It was a jest.


----------



## artFling (May 20, 2009)

" there I learned a wide variety of skills (both vocational and academic). Including Religious Education from an atheist (which is by far the best way to learn about every faith in an unbiased fashion). "

Don't kid yourself; everyone is biased, even the atheist.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2009)

artFling said:


> " there I learned a wide variety of skills (both vocational and academic). Including Religious Education from an atheist (which is by far the best way to learn about every faith in an unbiased fashion). "
> 
> Don't kid yourself; everyone is biased, even the atheist.


 
Ahem...if Sukerkin says he was unbiased...he was unbiased. Besides it is totally possible to be unbiased about things. One doesn't go through life with blinkers on you know! I for one have never met a chocolate I didn't like.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2009)

I have. Chocolate covered insects. i didnt like that one.....





Tez3 said:


> Ahem...if Sukerkin says he was unbiased...he was unbiased. Besides it is totally possible to be unbiased about things. One doesn't go through life with blinkers on you know! I for one have never met a chocolate I didn't like.


----------



## Tez3 (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> I have. Chocolate covered insects. i didnt like that one.....


 
Just lick the chocolate off lol! Like the old joke about the nurse that was given a bag of Brazil nuts by an old lady she looked after. She expressed her thanks only to be told by the old lady that she only liked the chocolate covering and had licked it all off.

We've got chocolate and chilli crisps here...I think you call them chips?
If you don't like that there's squirrel flavour.


Not off topic, it's a refreshment break lol! time for a cuppa and reflection!


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2009)

artFling said:


> Don't kid yourself; everyone is biased, even the atheist.


 
When it comes to religion, I stand by what I said.  I have never met a fairer minded and more enquiring man than my RE teacher at school.  

An atheist, who at his own expense had toured the holy sites of the world, learning from the 'holy' men at such sites and was there, in my school, to pass on what he learned to me, *without* faith based bias, it being an aspect of learning about human-kind, was a resource beyond price.


----------



## arnisador (May 20, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> you think kids need information? You must not have any kids if you think that. Trust me, I just raised one, and I caught her googling more than just her bio homework. This aint the 50's anymore. The information is all out there, and they know how to get it.



"I saw it on the web. It must be true."


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 20, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Ahem...if Sukerkin says he was unbiased...he was unbiased. Besides it is totally possible to be unbiased about things. One doesn't go through life with blinkers on you know! I for one have never met a chocolate I didn't like.


Everytime I see quotes like this I think of Cadbury's and Rowntree's chocolate. Yum....It's just not the same over here.


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> Everytime I see quotes like this I think of Cadbury's and Rowntree's chocolate. Yum....It's just not the same over here.


 
Talking of Rowntrees is actually very apt on this thread, it's a company started by Quakers which has done and is still doing a noble amount of work in making this world a better place!
http://www.josephrowntree.org.uk/


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 21, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Speaking from a female point of view it may be an idea to teach the males how to actually make love to a woman....so many, many of you get it so wrong.



This is getting off-topic, but it would help if females actually talked with us instead of expecting us to understand them without a manual.  For example, most females, if something (anything) is wrong, will not put it in words, and instead leave it for us to figure out.

If I ask my wife 'what's wrong'
She says 'Nothing' even though it could be something very specific.
Sometimes, the tone of 'nothing' means _'you are an idiot. You don't expect me to tell you what's wrong, Do you? And if you don't know already, then you really ****ed up. You are really in trouble._'

Of course there are also times when 'nothing' means what it says, yet other times it really sounds like she means 'nothing' even though it really means she is pissed off.

So if us males don't know what females want... it's not -all- our fault.
Most women know well enough how to make themselves understood by men. They just don't feel like it. It's simple enough, really: think about what you are going to say. Then strip it from all hidden meaning, subtle clues, and links to something you said a long time ago, until only the bare words are left.
If that does not convey the information you want us to act on, then we will screw up.
Likewise, if I say something, it really means what I am saying, with no hidden meaning or links with something I said last year about something unrelated.

Another example: some time ago I talked with a pregnant woman, and told her I don't ask about pregnancy until it is near the end of the term, because a friend of ours once make the fatal mistake of asking a non-pregnant friend how the pregnancy was going...

When I told my wife, she told me I was being an idiot, and explained in a detailed analysis of he conversation how that woman now probably thought I meant that she was fat... 

After 10 years of being with my wife (7 years married) I am still off-balance when it comes to interpreting what my wife says, and in some matters she flat out refuses to give direct answers. It's really not that I don't want to understand. It's just that she does not let me, as if it's a failing of mine that I don't understand when she is not communicating in a way I can interpret.


----------



## Kajowaraku (May 21, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> When I told my wife, she told me I was being an idiot, and explained in a detailed analysis of he conversation how that woman now probably thought I meant that she was fat...


 

Lmao. Sounds so familiar.


----------



## Tez3 (May 21, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> This is getting off-topic, but it would help if females actually talked with us instead of expecting us to understand them without a manual.  For example, most females, if something (anything) is wrong, will not put it in words, and instead leave it for us to figure out.
> 
> If I ask my wife 'what's wrong'
> She says 'Nothing' even though it could be something very specific.
> ...


 

Can't be much help I'm afraid, I'm not a very female friendly person in truth. I've always worked with men since I was 18 and fairly macho ones at that so if asked whats wrong I tell people exactly whats wrong but one man I'm close to still thinks there's hidden meanings in what I say because to him thats how women are.
I think it's one of those things that could do with being talked about while your'e still young, communication between the sexes! TBH the sex bit is easy it's all the rest thats hard!


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 21, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Talking of Rowntrees is actually very apt on this thread, it's a company started by Quakers which has done and is still doing a noble amount of work in making this world a better place!
> http://www.josephrowntree.org.uk/


I lived in York for a short time, when my old man started a business with a friend. During that time I went to Joseph Rowntree school. The school is in the Quaker village of New Earswick and is a truly beautiful place. Just as it was when it was built in the 30s/40s I believe. Going back to West Yorkshire was depressing after this experience.


----------



## teekin (May 22, 2009)

This is off topic but aprox 70% of what is communicated by women is non-verbal. I think the stat for men is 30%. The problem is that women expect men to be able to "see" what is being communicated non verbally....and they don't. Subtle does not work with *most* men, with some it is the only way to go. 
 My suggestion is to tell her you can see she is upset and ask her if she would like to talk about it. Then Shut Up and let her vent. Just by acknowledging she is upset and asking her to talk you have been supportive and caring and that's likely what the root problem was all about in the first place. 
lori


----------



## Carol (May 22, 2009)

I think any couple needs to put time and effort in to learning how each other communicates, no matter who they are or how old they are.   I tend to be open and blunt...which can also take some people by surprise.

Sometimes another person can be easy to understand, sometimes not, but getting to know more and more about another person is part of the enjoyment of a relationship, IMO.


----------



## arnisador (May 22, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> This is off topic but aprox 70% of what is communicated by women is non-verbal. I think the stat for men is 30%.



Sounds like a good topic for the "Relationships" section of a Sex Ed. course.


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Sounds like a good topic for the "Relationships" section of a Sex Ed. course.


 
It does, I don't think sex education should be all about 'the act'.


----------

