Should Sex Ed be reformed?

[yorkshirelad]

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]

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.



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



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.



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.



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



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?

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]

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]

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?

I now know that I spelled Heana...uh um Heenan wrong, you put me right there. I never went to the bloody place and don't even know who his eminance was. I did see a film about rabbits bonking in Biology. Could that equate to soft porn?

Probably been to Oulton, but don't recall. I'm from Seacroft/Whinmoor. Most kids in my time just stuck to their own areas. I have'nt been back since '93. I hear there are big changes. I go to Google Earth to see it some times, but the place looks just the same.

 

[yorkshirelad]

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]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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

 

[Gordon Nore]

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]

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

Wha, wha, what? :lol:

Stephen Hawkings has catagorically said that God does not exist.

If he did, he shouldn't have.

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 ‘fundamental constants of nature'—things that determine numerically how things work. Life wouldn't have been possible if those constants had been a little different—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—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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[yorkshirelad]

.




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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.....

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.