Forums > Social Discussion > Sex Education
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
4,172 posts
Location: Hastings, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
4,172 posts
Location: Hastings, United Kingdom
Posted:
Ok following today's talk by some nurse at school today I think this subject deserved a thread.
The amount of sex ed at my school (or rather the lack of it) really does worry me. I started a thread a while back concerning the numerous amount of pregnant girls at my school and I can't stop thinking that perhaps the proper sex education, these situations could have been avoided.
Today all the year 11 girls were hushed into the hall and this woman with a slideshow presentation began to tell us all about the wonder that is - periods. Sorry to be frank but, 2 years too late love.
I mean this was *really* basic stuff, the kind of info you get when you first join year 7, and yes its important to know but what, we're all 15 comming up 16 now. Surely its basic knowledge by now.
Surely this time would have been better spent talking about contreception? or STD's? or what emotional and/or physical ties come along with sex?
The talk only slightly broke the surface on the symptons of STD's and then quickly moved back onto telling us what tampons were. And we even got our own little 'goodie bag' at the end of the talk *rolls eyes*
We've had one lesson where we got to put a condom on a test tube, but no talk involved. The embarresed teacher buried her head in a book for most of the lesson.
And surely we're old enough to have mixed sex ,sex ed. classes now? nor have we even has a male teacher for one of these classes. and might I add that we havn't even touched on homosexuality or gay sex.
I think that most of britain (most not all) has a problem with sex education, and that most of these horrid situations that people wished they'd never gotten themself's into (pregnacy, STD's) could've been avoided with the right education.
Feel free to comment, state opinions and/or hurl rotten tomatoes at me
Aimz xx
Ok following today's talk by some nurse at school today I think this subject deserved a thread.
The amount of sex ed at my school (or rather the lack of it) really does worry me. I started a thread a while back concerning the numerous amount of pregnant girls at my school and I can't stop thinking that perhaps the proper sex education, these situations could have been avoided.
Today all the year 11 girls were hushed into the hall and this woman with a slideshow presentation began to tell us all about the wonder that is - periods. Sorry to be frank but, 2 years too late love.
I mean this was *really* basic stuff, the kind of info you get when you first join year 7, and yes its important to know but what, we're all 15 comming up 16 now. Surely its basic knowledge by now.
Surely this time would have been better spent talking about contreception? or STD's? or what emotional and/or physical ties come along with sex?
The talk only slightly broke the surface on the symptons of STD's and then quickly moved back onto telling us what tampons were. And we even got our own little 'goodie bag' at the end of the talk *rolls eyes*
We've had one lesson where we got to put a condom on a test tube, but no talk involved. The embarresed teacher buried her head in a book for most of the lesson.
And surely we're old enough to have mixed sex ,sex ed. classes now? nor have we even has a male teacher for one of these classes. and might I add that we havn't even touched on homosexuality or gay sex.
I think that most of britain (most not all) has a problem with sex education, and that most of these horrid situations that people wished they'd never gotten themself's into (pregnacy, STD's) could've been avoided with the right education.
Feel free to comment, state opinions and/or hurl rotten tomatoes at me
Aimz xx
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Personally, I subscribe to the theory that Mary "Magdalene" was Jesus' wife. It would have been very strange for an unmarried man to (a) exist and (b) be addressed as "rab'bi" at that time.
Burzaruka, you have the right not to be personally attacked. But you don't have the right not to be offended. Many of your comments offend me, but I don't go running to the mods.
Personally, I subscribe to the theory that Mary "Magdalene" was Jesus' wife. It would have been very strange for an unmarried man to (a) exist and (b) be addressed as "rab'bi" at that time.
Burzaruka, you have the right not to be personally attacked. But you don't have the right not to be offended. Many of your comments offend me, but I don't go running to the mods.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Fine. You do that.
Written by: Burzaruka
Lightning I am highly offended by you statment, so I'll just have to tell a mod.
Fine. You do that.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
member
13 posts
Location: Illinois, USA
13 posts
Location: Illinois, USA
Posted:
my school was kinda dumb about sex education as well. What's really stupid is that I'm an HIV/AIDS peer educator and we're not even allowed to go to the jr. high's (which is 7th and 8th grade here) because they think that instead of educating the students we would just make them think about sex more. Which i think is so dumb. We're trying to educate them so that they know what they're getting into when they do have sex not telling them "go have sex!! Lots of it!! Unprotected sex!!" grrrrrr.... unfortunitly most kids seem to be educated by films now-a-days.
my school was kinda dumb about sex education as well. What's really stupid is that I'm an HIV/AIDS peer educator and we're not even allowed to go to the jr. high's (which is 7th and 8th grade here) because they think that instead of educating the students we would just make them think about sex more. Which i think is so dumb. We're trying to educate them so that they know what they're getting into when they do have sex not telling them "go have sex!! Lots of it!! Unprotected sex!!" grrrrrr.... unfortunitly most kids seem to be educated by films now-a-days.
~Elisabeth~
:: shimmy shimmy shimmy flick :: Repeat as desired.
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
just keep on digging burz....
*advance apololgies to any teenagers who may be offended by what i write.
unfortunately you cannot always approach this from a completely rational perspective. the first reason, is that we're dealing with teenagers - with new hormones pumping, changing bodies, acne insecurity, angst and all the other stuff. they can be fairly unpredicatable, emotional, and also have the need to feeling indepedant and grown up.
coupled with the fact that they are human - who in general are completely illogical creatures in the first place.
learning about positive relationships are critical - but they need to know about what is inevitably going to happen in a relationship after a while
and how to be responsible
teenagers want to experiment! try new things! they suddenly start noticing the outside world that they hadnt seen before in the innocence of childhood.
teenagers will think about sex regardless of whether anyone has had a serious discussion about it. - because its everywhere around us! movies, tv, adverts, internet. they cannot help being made aware because so much emphasis in places on relationships, looking hot, and sex, in our everyday lives!
and, teenagers, like the rest of us humans - prefer to learn from there own mistakes than by some old fuddy duddy reeling off stories of 'when i was your age...'
and why shouldnt things like periods be covered in classes for kids?
surely its best to give as much information out as possible to younger kids - i mean we dont need to go overboard and explain what a 'screaming eagle' is [dont ask....] but so they have a positive source of information as to what's going to happen to them over the next few years - rather that kids relying on information gained from 'sex in the city', the internet, and a porn magazine some kids stole off his elder brother, then finally hearing the officiall version when they are 16 and have worked it out themselves.
to a teenager - its quite hypocritical - the rest of society is bonking happily away - then turning around and saying 'no, your too young to enjoy this fantastically fun pastime which your body is aching for....' then going off for another shag.
it this victorian-christian-conservative mode of thinking which pissed me off [apologies to progressive nice christians out there]. akin to the army's 'dont ask dont tell' policy...
if we ignore something, and dont tell the kids about it society will not break down...
crap.
we're more resiliant than that. teaching kids about safe sex wont make kids think about sex more. teaching kids about homosexuality wont turn every kid into wrist flopping poof or a dyke with excessive biceps and armpit hair. teaching kids about what happens with drugs, nicotine, and alcohol wont turn every kid into kurt cobain. teaching kids about youth suicide... back to kurt again.
bold statements? yes. why?
teenagers are exposed to all these challenges in their evreyday lives in the first place! they are aware about sex, drugs, gays, suicide - just watch the new, the movies, a tv drama, or listen to friends at school boasting.
these influences are already out there - we need to get the right message across before kids get the chance to take the wrong message and walk down another path.
i think that made sense anyway. brain not functioning today...
just keep on digging burz....
*advance apololgies to any teenagers who may be offended by what i write.
unfortunately you cannot always approach this from a completely rational perspective. the first reason, is that we're dealing with teenagers - with new hormones pumping, changing bodies, acne insecurity, angst and all the other stuff. they can be fairly unpredicatable, emotional, and also have the need to feeling indepedant and grown up.
coupled with the fact that they are human - who in general are completely illogical creatures in the first place.
learning about positive relationships are critical - but they need to know about what is inevitably going to happen in a relationship after a while
and how to be responsibleteenagers want to experiment! try new things! they suddenly start noticing the outside world that they hadnt seen before in the innocence of childhood.
teenagers will think about sex regardless of whether anyone has had a serious discussion about it. - because its everywhere around us! movies, tv, adverts, internet. they cannot help being made aware because so much emphasis in places on relationships, looking hot, and sex, in our everyday lives!
and, teenagers, like the rest of us humans - prefer to learn from there own mistakes than by some old fuddy duddy reeling off stories of 'when i was your age...'
and why shouldnt things like periods be covered in classes for kids?
surely its best to give as much information out as possible to younger kids - i mean we dont need to go overboard and explain what a 'screaming eagle' is [dont ask....] but so they have a positive source of information as to what's going to happen to them over the next few years - rather that kids relying on information gained from 'sex in the city', the internet, and a porn magazine some kids stole off his elder brother, then finally hearing the officiall version when they are 16 and have worked it out themselves.
to a teenager - its quite hypocritical - the rest of society is bonking happily away - then turning around and saying 'no, your too young to enjoy this fantastically fun pastime which your body is aching for....' then going off for another shag.
it this victorian-christian-conservative mode of thinking which pissed me off [apologies to progressive nice christians out there]. akin to the army's 'dont ask dont tell' policy...
if we ignore something, and dont tell the kids about it society will not break down...
crap.
we're more resiliant than that. teaching kids about safe sex wont make kids think about sex more. teaching kids about homosexuality wont turn every kid into wrist flopping poof or a dyke with excessive biceps and armpit hair. teaching kids about what happens with drugs, nicotine, and alcohol wont turn every kid into kurt cobain. teaching kids about youth suicide... back to kurt again.
bold statements? yes. why?
teenagers are exposed to all these challenges in their evreyday lives in the first place! they are aware about sex, drugs, gays, suicide - just watch the new, the movies, a tv drama, or listen to friends at school boasting.
these influences are already out there - we need to get the right message across before kids get the chance to take the wrong message and walk down another path.
i think that made sense anyway. brain not functioning today...
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Not only that, but millions of years of evolution have reinforced that an organism that WANTS to reproduce is more likely to than one that doesn't want to. Thus, we are hard-wired to think about sex come puberty.
Of course, evolution is just a myth and we shouldn't be teaching that, either...
Written by:
teenagers will think about sex regardless of whether anyone has had a serious discussion about it. - because its everywhere around us! movies, tv, adverts, internet. they cannot help being made aware because so much emphasis in places on relationships, looking hot, and sex, in our everyday lives!
Not only that, but millions of years of evolution have reinforced that an organism that WANTS to reproduce is more likely to than one that doesn't want to. Thus, we are hard-wired to think about sex come puberty.
Of course, evolution is just a myth and we shouldn't be teaching that, either...
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
Posted:
I find what is say hear Burzaruka, to be very genralistic. Not all guys need help in respecting females In my view; hardly any guys abuse their partners. Without a doubt some do, but the problem is far beyond school education. It is education from an apropriate rolemodel that will affect them and the choices they make. A teacher will make the guys feel feel confronted and uncomfortable in a situation were they are not sure what they have done wrong.
I believe no matter what a teacher or parent says, teenagers are always going to experiment in drugs and sex, Its job of the job of the teachers to educate the teens about sex and about BEING SAFE with the use of contreseptives. After all; It is the students choice.
Written by: Burzaruka
I
Teach young people how to have a positive relationship with one another. Teach young guys how to properly respect a woman and teach women how to avoid getting into the trap of an abusive relationship and visa versa as there are abusive women out there and what not.
I find what is say hear Burzaruka, to be very genralistic. Not all guys need help in respecting females In my view; hardly any guys abuse their partners. Without a doubt some do, but the problem is far beyond school education. It is education from an apropriate rolemodel that will affect them and the choices they make. A teacher will make the guys feel feel confronted and uncomfortable in a situation were they are not sure what they have done wrong.
I believe no matter what a teacher or parent says, teenagers are always going to experiment in drugs and sex, Its job of the job of the teachers to educate the teens about sex and about BEING SAFE with the use of contreseptives. After all; It is the students choice.
"glow bugs, to slow to resist eating, to bitter to eat more than one handfull in a sitting" toothpaste for dinner
SILVER Member
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
Posted:
I have to agree with you Dentrassi, totally.
Thier is no sense in hiding the facts about sex. Better education will influence teens into taking responsibilty and care. It won't influence them to shag every stranger they meet.
I have to agree with you Dentrassi, totally.
Thier is no sense in hiding the facts about sex. Better education will influence teens into taking responsibilty and care. It won't influence them to shag every stranger they meet.
"glow bugs, to slow to resist eating, to bitter to eat more than one handfull in a sitting" toothpaste for dinner
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Good relationship or not, sex will happen. And unless people know how to use condoms, babies and disease will, too.
Good relationship or not, sex will happen. And unless people know how to use condoms, babies and disease will, too.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posted:
Here Here, Dentrassi!
I find that people underestimate teenagers and don't expect teenagers to be responsible, etc.
The funny thing? Humans live up to the expectations of those around them. Kids and teenagers are generally brighter than adults give them credit for....they may not display that brighter side of them, but it is there.
One point I see Dentrassi trying to make: Give teenagers a bit more credit. You can't ignore sexuality and sex education. It's out there, around them all the time. Arm them with information so they can go out there and make informed decisions and choices. THey may still make mistakes, but at least they'll know what they're getting in to...
Knowledge is power, ultimately. Hiding the truth from them, hiding reality from them will only hurt in the long run. Living in ignorance is like walking through a system of caves without a torch....at some point, you're going to stumble into the bottomless pit, and the sudden stop will hurt. If, though, you know what you're about to walk into, then you can decide to walk around the pit, or take the risk.
It doesn't guarantee teenagers will always avoid the risk, but at least they'll know what they are getting themselves into. You can't hide the truth from them...they will find out. What you have to ask yourselves is do you want them to find out via friends, tv, etc and perhaps not get complete and truthful information, or do you teach them in a controled environment, knowing the information they're getting is correct?
I'm not saying don't teach abstenance, but teach responsibility too...if you ARE going to have sex, then do it with protection for your sake and the sake of your partners.
And I've rambled enough for this morning.......
Here Here, Dentrassi!
I find that people underestimate teenagers and don't expect teenagers to be responsible, etc.
The funny thing? Humans live up to the expectations of those around them. Kids and teenagers are generally brighter than adults give them credit for....they may not display that brighter side of them, but it is there.
One point I see Dentrassi trying to make: Give teenagers a bit more credit. You can't ignore sexuality and sex education. It's out there, around them all the time. Arm them with information so they can go out there and make informed decisions and choices. THey may still make mistakes, but at least they'll know what they're getting in to...
Knowledge is power, ultimately. Hiding the truth from them, hiding reality from them will only hurt in the long run. Living in ignorance is like walking through a system of caves without a torch....at some point, you're going to stumble into the bottomless pit, and the sudden stop will hurt. If, though, you know what you're about to walk into, then you can decide to walk around the pit, or take the risk.
It doesn't guarantee teenagers will always avoid the risk, but at least they'll know what they are getting themselves into. You can't hide the truth from them...they will find out. What you have to ask yourselves is do you want them to find out via friends, tv, etc and perhaps not get complete and truthful information, or do you teach them in a controled environment, knowing the information they're getting is correct?
I'm not saying don't teach abstenance, but teach responsibility too...if you ARE going to have sex, then do it with protection for your sake and the sake of your partners.
And I've rambled enough for this morning.......
Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
Well said Dentrassi.
I think that's a very good point and probably the reason information isn't given out. It keeps the higher ups still in power over our youth. Knowing that teens can think for themselves scares the [censored] out of adults
Well said Dentrassi.
Written by: SpitFire
Knowledge is power
I think that's a very good point and probably the reason information isn't given out. It keeps the higher ups still in power over our youth. Knowing that teens can think for themselves scares the [censored] out of adults
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
Shoryuken!
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
Posted:
We had our first sex ed class in year 6. Our teacher got an errection. Free tampons were handed out to the girls, and quickly passed on to the boys for use in schemes with hilarious consequences. It got alot better in year 11, but by then who doesn't already know it all? In year 10 I was taught how to make a bucket (drugs smoking device,) that was probably the most usefull advice I got from such lessons.
Femidoms are stupid and wrong. Yuck,
We had our first sex ed class in year 6. Our teacher got an errection. Free tampons were handed out to the girls, and quickly passed on to the boys for use in schemes with hilarious consequences. It got alot better in year 11, but by then who doesn't already know it all? In year 10 I was taught how to make a bucket (drugs smoking device,) that was probably the most usefull advice I got from such lessons.
Femidoms are stupid and wrong. Yuck,
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
It is neither odd nor rare for a man in those times to be single, there is also NO PROOF that Jesus had a wife or even a love intrest, in fact when presented with a woman who had just been cought in the act of adultry (meaning she was cought having sex) he looked away.
Pounce, if that is so, why is it offensive to say that the path someone is living will lead to hell? Is it because I am then talking about a specific person? In fact, what does it matter? It was offensive, that is all that matters. I have had the mods on me for far less a thing, heaven forbid that I use the tools given to all on this site.
Now, it is clear that I was at fault for not being clear in what I said about sex ed and what not.
Yes, teaching children about sex is a good thing. Teaching them about the possible out come of this decision to have sex is a good and highly important thing. STDs and pregnancy be it teen or 40 year olds, is not a subject for anyone to take lightly.
Teenagers do not always experiment with sex despite what teachers or parents say. A very large majority do.
I didn't say that periods shouldnt be coverd, I said not in a sex ed class. However judging from what my sister and others have said about their sex ed on periods, it was nonsence. To little information too late, also sex wasn't a topic of discussion, but the period was put into detail. Why is it called sex ed when sex isn't hardly talked about? Hence why I suggested that sex ed and something like the period should be coverd in two differnt classes or something of the like.
Folks I might not be making myself clear enough, but I agree that education is important, but it isn't just the fact that you are telling kids about pregnancy, STDs, periods, homosexuality, teen scuicide, it is WHAT you are teaching them.
For someone who feels that homosexuality is okay, is it right for them to have "homosexuality is wrong" being thrown at them for an hour each day for a week? And visa versa.
Some of those topics, if not all, should be approached by a multi-viewed class. Only then will the child be educated and able to make their own decisions. However if only one side is tought, then you will have a generation of kids all thinking a like, and thus not truely thinking for themselves.
Save the evoloution debate for later, but no, neither creationisim or evoloution should be tought in schools, save history for known history. Since religion isn't allowed in schools, with the exception of teaching "Muslim Awareness", creationisim shouldnt be tought, and since evoloution is a laughable claim by any scientific standard it should also not be tought. I personally wasn't tought either, in school.
Lightning, deasese and pregnancy still happen don't they? You can lead the horse to water, but you cant make it drink, that goes the same with abstinance or any other form of "safe" sex.
Personally I feel that monogomy is the presonification of safe sex.
It is neither odd nor rare for a man in those times to be single, there is also NO PROOF that Jesus had a wife or even a love intrest, in fact when presented with a woman who had just been cought in the act of adultry (meaning she was cought having sex) he looked away.
Pounce, if that is so, why is it offensive to say that the path someone is living will lead to hell? Is it because I am then talking about a specific person? In fact, what does it matter? It was offensive, that is all that matters. I have had the mods on me for far less a thing, heaven forbid that I use the tools given to all on this site.
Now, it is clear that I was at fault for not being clear in what I said about sex ed and what not.
Yes, teaching children about sex is a good thing. Teaching them about the possible out come of this decision to have sex is a good and highly important thing. STDs and pregnancy be it teen or 40 year olds, is not a subject for anyone to take lightly.
Teenagers do not always experiment with sex despite what teachers or parents say. A very large majority do.
I didn't say that periods shouldnt be coverd, I said not in a sex ed class. However judging from what my sister and others have said about their sex ed on periods, it was nonsence. To little information too late, also sex wasn't a topic of discussion, but the period was put into detail. Why is it called sex ed when sex isn't hardly talked about? Hence why I suggested that sex ed and something like the period should be coverd in two differnt classes or something of the like.
Folks I might not be making myself clear enough, but I agree that education is important, but it isn't just the fact that you are telling kids about pregnancy, STDs, periods, homosexuality, teen scuicide, it is WHAT you are teaching them.
For someone who feels that homosexuality is okay, is it right for them to have "homosexuality is wrong" being thrown at them for an hour each day for a week? And visa versa.
Some of those topics, if not all, should be approached by a multi-viewed class. Only then will the child be educated and able to make their own decisions. However if only one side is tought, then you will have a generation of kids all thinking a like, and thus not truely thinking for themselves.
Save the evoloution debate for later, but no, neither creationisim or evoloution should be tought in schools, save history for known history. Since religion isn't allowed in schools, with the exception of teaching "Muslim Awareness", creationisim shouldnt be tought, and since evoloution is a laughable claim by any scientific standard it should also not be tought. I personally wasn't tought either, in school.
Lightning, deasese and pregnancy still happen don't they? You can lead the horse to water, but you cant make it drink, that goes the same with abstinance or any other form of "safe" sex.
Personally I feel that monogomy is the presonification of safe sex.
member
74 posts
Location: Kamloops, BC
74 posts
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posted:
I would say Buruzuka that those of us who attended more. . .socially liberal schools never encountered sex ed and human development being taught in the same course--as I said in mine, human development was taught quite early, before puberty for any of the guys or girls more or less, and only STD's were covered to make people aware of their existance. Only later (5 years later) was sex ed covered, and I consider sex ed to be things like contraceptives, condoms, etc. Heck I don't think in my gr. 8 year we did a few feeks on studying STD's because it was part of the curriculum. Just pure facts, nothing preaching. It was biology. These are the vectors, symptoms, effects, cures . . . heck I think the slide shows of graphic STD's worked quite well on the group.
The problems with multi-viewed classes is that you get society's influence affecting what is taught, and the most vocal sections of our societies tend to be the most fringe. Homo-sexuality is wrong to whom? Where I live only the extreme right would feel it is so, should my schooling cater so a group that is socially regressed in my socially progressive society and schooling? I highly doubt it as it would be met with ridicule by the majority of people (Census shows that over 40% of my region is Athiest/Agnostic (provincial avg is 33%)) and is higher for youth than the elder portion of the population.
Much like I know very few who would suggestion evolution is anything but a fact--and those few are what I would consider the christian extreme right, well for here anyways, as they are a very conservative baptist group. No religious group here would complain about evolution being taught--most of them admit it is true anyways. Besides if they want to teach their particular view of creationism (there's at least 10 here on the census report I'm looking at, 2001 Canada Census, BC) they can do it in their religious institutions.
I think in a general we can say that a more socially progressive Sex-Ed course not only results in lower teenage pregnacy rates but also a lower STD transmission rate. If you require proof I'll just throw in some quotes to help:
"In addition to having a higher adolescent pregnancy rate, the United States has higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among adolescents than most other developed countries.5 The incidence of chlamydia among adolescents in the United States (1,132 cases per 100,000) is nearly twice that in Canada and Sweden (where reporting is relatively complete), five times that in England, and 20 times that in France (two countries where reporting is considered to be less complete, as it is in the United States). The annual incidence of gonorrhea among all U.S. adolescents (572 cases per 100,000) is 10 or more times the level in the other four countries. "
"Despite recent declines, the current level of births to adolescents continues to be much higher in the United States than in most other developed countries.1 Continued decreases in U.S. rates have only succeeded in moving the country's levels slightly closer to where those of most other developed countries were during the late 1990s.2 (By 2000, the teenage birthrate in the United States had declined to 49 per 1,000, as compared with late-1990s rates of 7-9 in Sweden and France, and 20-31 in Canada and Great Britain.) "
https://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
Anyways if we *really* need to debate the point, I'll draw a very simplified conclusion from the data in that report.
The countries with the least socially progressive (ie: open and frank) sex ed programs here have the highest (in an almost exponential fashion) STD and Teen Pregnacy rates.
Now we could argue the point till we're dead, but I'm sure I can provide a considerable amount of scientific data to back up such points.
A highly developed, open and frank sexual education classes at early ages along with the removal of social stigma ensures that teens are given the information they require to have safe sex and protect themselves from STD's and Pregnacies.
This has very little to do with teens being stupid and hormone influenced--it has very much to do with the society they live in not giving them the information they require to make appropriate and safe choices.
As for your analogy with the horse--Abstinence and Safe Sex are two different things completely. Abstinence would be a complete lack fo sex. So in that case, that would be not giving the horse any water at all. So when it finds water, it will drink--even if that water is bad for it, it will still drink because it has too. If you give the horse an option of stagnant water or fresh water, the horse goes with the fresh. Because that is what's best for the horse.
Monogamy is a good start. However as we've seen, relationships no longer last as they do. So while you may only have sex with your partner. . . what happens if your partner leaves you. Now you must find another--and if that's case, your new partner might have already had another partner. Are they infected? In today's society it is fool hardy not to use precautions and be well educated on such matters. And we should be providing our youth with that information at an early age, when it is critical to them then.
I would say Buruzuka that those of us who attended more. . .socially liberal schools never encountered sex ed and human development being taught in the same course--as I said in mine, human development was taught quite early, before puberty for any of the guys or girls more or less, and only STD's were covered to make people aware of their existance. Only later (5 years later) was sex ed covered, and I consider sex ed to be things like contraceptives, condoms, etc. Heck I don't think in my gr. 8 year we did a few feeks on studying STD's because it was part of the curriculum. Just pure facts, nothing preaching. It was biology. These are the vectors, symptoms, effects, cures . . . heck I think the slide shows of graphic STD's worked quite well on the group.
The problems with multi-viewed classes is that you get society's influence affecting what is taught, and the most vocal sections of our societies tend to be the most fringe. Homo-sexuality is wrong to whom? Where I live only the extreme right would feel it is so, should my schooling cater so a group that is socially regressed in my socially progressive society and schooling? I highly doubt it as it would be met with ridicule by the majority of people (Census shows that over 40% of my region is Athiest/Agnostic (provincial avg is 33%)) and is higher for youth than the elder portion of the population.
Much like I know very few who would suggestion evolution is anything but a fact--and those few are what I would consider the christian extreme right, well for here anyways, as they are a very conservative baptist group. No religious group here would complain about evolution being taught--most of them admit it is true anyways. Besides if they want to teach their particular view of creationism (there's at least 10 here on the census report I'm looking at, 2001 Canada Census, BC) they can do it in their religious institutions.
I think in a general we can say that a more socially progressive Sex-Ed course not only results in lower teenage pregnacy rates but also a lower STD transmission rate. If you require proof I'll just throw in some quotes to help:
"In addition to having a higher adolescent pregnancy rate, the United States has higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among adolescents than most other developed countries.5 The incidence of chlamydia among adolescents in the United States (1,132 cases per 100,000) is nearly twice that in Canada and Sweden (where reporting is relatively complete), five times that in England, and 20 times that in France (two countries where reporting is considered to be less complete, as it is in the United States). The annual incidence of gonorrhea among all U.S. adolescents (572 cases per 100,000) is 10 or more times the level in the other four countries. "
"Despite recent declines, the current level of births to adolescents continues to be much higher in the United States than in most other developed countries.1 Continued decreases in U.S. rates have only succeeded in moving the country's levels slightly closer to where those of most other developed countries were during the late 1990s.2 (By 2000, the teenage birthrate in the United States had declined to 49 per 1,000, as compared with late-1990s rates of 7-9 in Sweden and France, and 20-31 in Canada and Great Britain.) "
https://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html
Anyways if we *really* need to debate the point, I'll draw a very simplified conclusion from the data in that report.
The countries with the least socially progressive (ie: open and frank) sex ed programs here have the highest (in an almost exponential fashion) STD and Teen Pregnacy rates.
Now we could argue the point till we're dead, but I'm sure I can provide a considerable amount of scientific data to back up such points.
A highly developed, open and frank sexual education classes at early ages along with the removal of social stigma ensures that teens are given the information they require to have safe sex and protect themselves from STD's and Pregnacies.
This has very little to do with teens being stupid and hormone influenced--it has very much to do with the society they live in not giving them the information they require to make appropriate and safe choices.
As for your analogy with the horse--Abstinence and Safe Sex are two different things completely. Abstinence would be a complete lack fo sex. So in that case, that would be not giving the horse any water at all. So when it finds water, it will drink--even if that water is bad for it, it will still drink because it has too. If you give the horse an option of stagnant water or fresh water, the horse goes with the fresh. Because that is what's best for the horse.
Monogamy is a good start. However as we've seen, relationships no longer last as they do. So while you may only have sex with your partner. . . what happens if your partner leaves you. Now you must find another--and if that's case, your new partner might have already had another partner. Are they infected? In today's society it is fool hardy not to use precautions and be well educated on such matters. And we should be providing our youth with that information at an early age, when it is critical to them then.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Phellan, it is your opinoin that says that a society who does not accept homosexuality is regressed, while it is my opinion that a society that does accept homosexuality is regressed. Do you see the differance?
Evoloution, can not be proven, therefore cannot and should not be tought as fact.
Your facts, those are ratios right, not physical numbers correct? So population variences are not an issue right?
You are thinking too literally about the analogy and not literally enough about the subject represented. Abstinance, when practiced is 100% effective. No body can argue with that. It isn't avoiding sexual predicaments, it is the practice of being faced with the opprotunity and abstaining.
You are also taking my analogy out of context. I am saying that you can teach people safe sex, to include abstinance, but you can't make them practice any of the above.
What do you mean infected? What I mean about monogomy, is very similer to abstinance, not having sex untill you are married. Now, yes the ratio of marrages that last to marrages that don't is pretty bad, however, we are dealing with ideals. Idealy when you get married, you don't sleep around, you don't leave your spouce. Rationally thinking it does happen but not as often as it doesn't, however should you refuse to try just because the ratio isn't in your favor? Life is a constant battle between making the right choice and making the wrong choice. If you got a divorce obviously the wrong choice was made somewhere down the line.
Phellan, it is your opinoin that says that a society who does not accept homosexuality is regressed, while it is my opinion that a society that does accept homosexuality is regressed. Do you see the differance?
Evoloution, can not be proven, therefore cannot and should not be tought as fact.
Your facts, those are ratios right, not physical numbers correct? So population variences are not an issue right?
You are thinking too literally about the analogy and not literally enough about the subject represented. Abstinance, when practiced is 100% effective. No body can argue with that. It isn't avoiding sexual predicaments, it is the practice of being faced with the opprotunity and abstaining.
You are also taking my analogy out of context. I am saying that you can teach people safe sex, to include abstinance, but you can't make them practice any of the above.
What do you mean infected? What I mean about monogomy, is very similer to abstinance, not having sex untill you are married. Now, yes the ratio of marrages that last to marrages that don't is pretty bad, however, we are dealing with ideals. Idealy when you get married, you don't sleep around, you don't leave your spouce. Rationally thinking it does happen but not as often as it doesn't, however should you refuse to try just because the ratio isn't in your favor? Life is a constant battle between making the right choice and making the wrong choice. If you got a divorce obviously the wrong choice was made somewhere down the line.
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
Burzaruka.....it seems to be you live in a utpoian world. can i come and visit? yes, monogamy would be a great thing, but let's be realistic. it rarely occurs. preparation against any and all possibilities is the wisest choice of action. just because we close our eyes to it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. that only worked when we were 3 years old. let's set aside the fear of teens being tempted to have sex due to education. how will each individual learn about it? they grow up sometime, and when they do, they will eventually get into a relationship, get married, have sex. and when will the education occur then? we've got a percentage of kids who don't complete high school, and the numbers of ones that don't go on to further schooling gets exponentially higher. why not teach them when we have them, BEFORE they make those choices.
STDs and pregnancy come from any sexual relationships. that includes sexual assault and rape. what would you tell the young 10 year old girl who was raped by her neighbor, and suddenly doesn't know why she is getting sick every morning? or the 14 year old girl who was attached by a stranger and now has burning sensations when she pees? the shame surrounding assault and rape often drives many girls and women to not report it, so they often don't get the medical attention they need. they are unaware they might have an STD or be pregnant.
you have a right to be offended by anything. but because lightning's views don't match yours you are going to report it to a mod? i'm sorry, but i think that's childish. he wasn't attacking anyone in his post, he was expressing an opinion. that's all i was saying.
Burzaruka.....it seems to be you live in a utpoian world. can i come and visit? yes, monogamy would be a great thing, but let's be realistic. it rarely occurs. preparation against any and all possibilities is the wisest choice of action. just because we close our eyes to it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. that only worked when we were 3 years old. let's set aside the fear of teens being tempted to have sex due to education. how will each individual learn about it? they grow up sometime, and when they do, they will eventually get into a relationship, get married, have sex. and when will the education occur then? we've got a percentage of kids who don't complete high school, and the numbers of ones that don't go on to further schooling gets exponentially higher. why not teach them when we have them, BEFORE they make those choices.
STDs and pregnancy come from any sexual relationships. that includes sexual assault and rape. what would you tell the young 10 year old girl who was raped by her neighbor, and suddenly doesn't know why she is getting sick every morning? or the 14 year old girl who was attached by a stranger and now has burning sensations when she pees? the shame surrounding assault and rape often drives many girls and women to not report it, so they often don't get the medical attention they need. they are unaware they might have an STD or be pregnant.
you have a right to be offended by anything. but because lightning's views don't match yours you are going to report it to a mod? i'm sorry, but i think that's childish. he wasn't attacking anyone in his post, he was expressing an opinion. that's all i was saying.
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Pounce, are you saying that it is absolutly impossible to grow up and not have sex?
It seems to be a plausable trend for someone to complain about what I say, but for me to complain, that is a differnt issue. Why the double standard Pounce? I reported what Lightning said to the Mod, because it was ofensive and did not corrispond with the rules of this board, it did not follow any of the four rules of making posts.
I agree with teaching kids about sex, why do you not read that? I feel there should be an emphisis on teaching them the RIGHT, right as in correct, things. I am not saying that it is not done already in some schools, I am only saying that it needs to be done more often.
Pounce, are you saying that it is absolutly impossible to grow up and not have sex?
It seems to be a plausable trend for someone to complain about what I say, but for me to complain, that is a differnt issue. Why the double standard Pounce? I reported what Lightning said to the Mod, because it was ofensive and did not corrispond with the rules of this board, it did not follow any of the four rules of making posts.
I agree with teaching kids about sex, why do you not read that? I feel there should be an emphisis on teaching them the RIGHT, right as in correct, things. I am not saying that it is not done already in some schools, I am only saying that it needs to be done more often.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Far be it from me to seriously comment on Jesus's personal life, or who Jesus might have been as a human being. He was, of course, a human being before he rose.
I sometimes even question if Jesus existed at all. It's possible that he is a combination of several real men. It's also questioned whether Hippocrates actually existed or whether "his" works are actually a collection of works by many authors. Things happen over 2,000 years. Stories pass ear to ear, pen to paper and paper to pen.
Far be it from me to seriously comment on Jesus's personal life, or who Jesus might have been as a human being. He was, of course, a human being before he rose.
I sometimes even question if Jesus existed at all. It's possible that he is a combination of several real men. It's also questioned whether Hippocrates actually existed or whether "his" works are actually a collection of works by many authors. Things happen over 2,000 years. Stories pass ear to ear, pen to paper and paper to pen.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
hmmm... offensive = making a remark with humourous intent and sexual inuendo about someone who's been dead for 2000 years....
non-offensive = telling some they are going to hell.
great! now ive got that understood!
anyway, i think we all agree that we need more adequate and practical sex education, however the sticking point appears to be what precisely to teach them. yes burz, we need to teach them the RIGHT things...... but thats a very general statment.
there needs to be an agreement on what the RIGHT things actually are.... and that where the entire plan goes to [censored].
the conservative approach believes that abstinence is the key - which is the best theory... but in practise isnt a particuarly realistic solution for reasons explained in my last post.
the other approach - is what most of us seem to beleive is the correct direction - giving kids loads of practical information.
in reality, we need a healthy dose of both, but mostly the second.
why? im glad someone brought up sweden earlier. my best friend went their for a year - his perception was that the country is far more open and liberal when it comes to sex - both in practise and talking about it. parents are more comfortable talking to kids about sex - its not this taboo subject we have in so many western cultures.
and they have one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates.
strange....
hmmm... offensive = making a remark with humourous intent and sexual inuendo about someone who's been dead for 2000 years....
non-offensive = telling some they are going to hell.
great! now ive got that understood!
anyway, i think we all agree that we need more adequate and practical sex education, however the sticking point appears to be what precisely to teach them. yes burz, we need to teach them the RIGHT things...... but thats a very general statment.
there needs to be an agreement on what the RIGHT things actually are.... and that where the entire plan goes to [censored].
the conservative approach believes that abstinence is the key - which is the best theory... but in practise isnt a particuarly realistic solution for reasons explained in my last post.
the other approach - is what most of us seem to beleive is the correct direction - giving kids loads of practical information.
in reality, we need a healthy dose of both, but mostly the second.
why? im glad someone brought up sweden earlier. my best friend went their for a year - his perception was that the country is far more open and liberal when it comes to sex - both in practise and talking about it. parents are more comfortable talking to kids about sex - its not this taboo subject we have in so many western cultures.
and they have one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates.
strange....
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Or logical. Treat sex like a natural, human function, which it is. And suddenly sex ed becomes superfluous. You might as well have laundry class.
Or logical. Treat sex like a natural, human function, which it is. And suddenly sex ed becomes superfluous. You might as well have laundry class.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
quoting burz....
why burz? are you an exception?
quoting burz....
Written by:
Pounce, are you saying that it is absolutly impossible to grow up and not have sex?
why burz? are you an exception?
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
SILVER Member
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
Posted:
You are right here Burzaruka. I agree and believe that if you teach a child or teen in this case, what is right or wrong, it is no longer what they believe, but what has been taught to them. (which isn't always wrong Here wego again)
I believe that the only way for a person to learn truly, is to find out for them selves. This is not to say that a pesron should make the mistake of not using a condom after it has been tuaght to them that that they help prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies, but that actually meeting and talking to a person who is gay or lesbian, is probly the best way to make the judgements on weather homosexuality is right or wrong for themselves, not for or buy other people.
Written by: Burzaruka
For someone who feels that homosexuality is okay, is it right for them to have "homosexuality is wrong" being thrown at them for an hour each day for a week? And visa versa.
Some of those topics, if not all, should be approached by a multi-viewed class. Only then will the child be educated and able to make their own decisions. However if only one side is tought, then you will have a generation of kids all thinking a like, and thus not truely thinking for themselves.
You are right here Burzaruka. I agree and believe that if you teach a child or teen in this case, what is right or wrong, it is no longer what they believe, but what has been taught to them. (which isn't always wrong
Here wego again) I believe that the only way for a person to learn truly, is to find out for them selves. This is not to say that a pesron should make the mistake of not using a condom after it has been tuaght to them that that they help prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies, but that actually meeting and talking to a person who is gay or lesbian, is probly the best way to make the judgements on weather homosexuality is right or wrong for themselves, not for or buy other people.
"glow bugs, to slow to resist eating, to bitter to eat more than one handfull in a sitting" toothpaste for dinner
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Moderators' Announcement
It seems that we're beginning to stray into the relgion arena again, along with personal snipes. I'd like to remind all of you where this has got us before: nowhere.
Currently we, the mods, have seen no post that we feel needs to be deleted. You are all free to continue this discussion but we'd advise you to leave religion out of it, and yes, this is possible.
Thank you
Moderators' Announcement
It seems that we're beginning to stray into the relgion arena again, along with personal snipes. I'd like to remind all of you where this has got us before: nowhere.
Currently we, the mods, have seen no post that we feel needs to be deleted. You are all free to continue this discussion but we'd advise you to leave religion out of it, and yes, this is possible.
Thank you
BRONZE Member
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Posted:
This thread started as a very astute observation regarding the lack adequate sex education. Before I share my views I will follow one the deviations, so ignore this next paragraph and then lets all stick to the subject:
"Evolution cannot be proved so it should not be taught"
Absolute rubbish!!! In science there are no solid facts just a bunch a theories that have a lot of weight in their favour. These theories are as good as fact - the theory of relativity E = MC^2 is simply a theory. It is impossible to prove. However, it works and so it is accepted as fact and will remain so until a better theory is produced (originally the equation was E = +/- MC^2 but the +/- was removed since no one contemplated anti matter and anti energy at the time and of course this has now changed). Likewise, evolution works. Look at examples of genetic drift with people with the gene for sickle cell anaemia - compare the amounts of suffering between Africans and Afro-Americans. More in Africa since to be a carrier of the sickle gene means that one is immune to malaria. Same ancestors, offspring when moved to another continent with less malaria through natural selection now have a lower incidence of a genetic illness – sickle cell anaemia.
Sex education - very poor. Sex education should be taught from nursery age onwards. I know that this sounds young but teaching infants about what the parts of their body are called and their function is vital so that should they be molested they know it is wrong, will be able to recognise what is happening to them and hopefully get out the situation and be able to inform the police or who ever accurately. Too many people report being raped many years after the event simply because they did not have the vocabulary and knowledge to confront the situation when it happened and so the perpetrators go on to assault many others before justice prevails. Indeed "...knowledge is power..."
In the UK teenage sex education is limited due to teachers being trained in a particular subject such as science (in my case). Many teachers do not like teaching sex education since it diverts their attentions from meeting government targets. Schools are judged on exam results rather than how many pupils go on to become decent human beings. The upshot is teachers doing a half arsed job when it comes to sex education and social skills in general. What is needed is a specially qualified social skills teacher who has the current facts and theories regarding society in the same way a science teacher draw upon Darwin’s or Einstein’s theories. Someone in government needs to take responsibility.
As a Catholic I do not take the comment about Jesus possibly being involved with a women or man as an offence. I admit that the comment was tactless. However, Jesus’ teaching revolves about love for one’s neighbours and so the notion that Jesus experienced love in the sense of the intimacy between two loving partners is no bad thing. The morals taught are more important than the day to day stuff. Likewise, teenagers should also be taught about the emotional side and well as the biology of sex, the various religious views on the topic, the likelihood of STDs (1 in 7 sexually active girls under the age of 17 in the UK have Chlamydia) and pregnancy and then with the accumulation of all this knowledge it is up to them to make an informed decision.
This thread started as a very astute observation regarding the lack adequate sex education. Before I share my views I will follow one the deviations, so ignore this next paragraph and then lets all stick to the subject:
"Evolution cannot be proved so it should not be taught"
Absolute rubbish!!! In science there are no solid facts just a bunch a theories that have a lot of weight in their favour. These theories are as good as fact - the theory of relativity E = MC^2 is simply a theory. It is impossible to prove. However, it works and so it is accepted as fact and will remain so until a better theory is produced (originally the equation was E = +/- MC^2 but the +/- was removed since no one contemplated anti matter and anti energy at the time and of course this has now changed). Likewise, evolution works. Look at examples of genetic drift with people with the gene for sickle cell anaemia - compare the amounts of suffering between Africans and Afro-Americans. More in Africa since to be a carrier of the sickle gene means that one is immune to malaria. Same ancestors, offspring when moved to another continent with less malaria through natural selection now have a lower incidence of a genetic illness – sickle cell anaemia.
Sex education - very poor. Sex education should be taught from nursery age onwards. I know that this sounds young but teaching infants about what the parts of their body are called and their function is vital so that should they be molested they know it is wrong, will be able to recognise what is happening to them and hopefully get out the situation and be able to inform the police or who ever accurately. Too many people report being raped many years after the event simply because they did not have the vocabulary and knowledge to confront the situation when it happened and so the perpetrators go on to assault many others before justice prevails. Indeed "...knowledge is power..."
In the UK teenage sex education is limited due to teachers being trained in a particular subject such as science (in my case). Many teachers do not like teaching sex education since it diverts their attentions from meeting government targets. Schools are judged on exam results rather than how many pupils go on to become decent human beings. The upshot is teachers doing a half arsed job when it comes to sex education and social skills in general. What is needed is a specially qualified social skills teacher who has the current facts and theories regarding society in the same way a science teacher draw upon Darwin’s or Einstein’s theories. Someone in government needs to take responsibility.
As a Catholic I do not take the comment about Jesus possibly being involved with a women or man as an offence. I admit that the comment was tactless. However, Jesus’ teaching revolves about love for one’s neighbours and so the notion that Jesus experienced love in the sense of the intimacy between two loving partners is no bad thing. The morals taught are more important than the day to day stuff. Likewise, teenagers should also be taught about the emotional side and well as the biology of sex, the various religious views on the topic, the likelihood of STDs (1 in 7 sexually active girls under the age of 17 in the UK have Chlamydia) and pregnancy and then with the accumulation of all this knowledge it is up to them to make an informed decision.
>What do you think about the state of the Earth?
>I'm optimistic.
>So why do you look so sad?
>I'm not sure that my optimism is justified.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
At the risk of causing further hi-jacking of someone's thread, science is full of facts, evoloution, isn't.
I absolutly agree with this, yes bring in people who are willing to share their lives.
I have seen a book in Barnes & Noble's (sp) talking about people who WERE gay. If you want to bring in people who are gay, then you should bring in people who were gay as well. Give the children both sides of the story, not just one. Hmm that kind of blows the whole homosexuality isn't a choice thing out of the water... man I am going to have to go buy that book.
Both were opinoins, however one was offensive the other wasn't, yet when I said I would go to the Mods about an opinoin that offended me, I was called childish, why then when I said the other opinoin listed was it not considerd childish for that person to go to a Mod?
I wasn't attacking anyone when I said that, I was expressing an opinoin.
At the risk of causing further hi-jacking of someone's thread, science is full of facts, evoloution, isn't.
Written by:
I believe that the only way for a person to learn truly, is to find out for them selves. This is not to say that a pesron should make the mistake of not using a condom after it has been tuaght to them that that they help prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies, but that actually meeting and talking to a person who is gay or lesbian, is probly the best way to make the judgements on weather homosexuality is right or wrong for themselves, not for or buy other people.
I absolutly agree with this, yes bring in people who are willing to share their lives.
I have seen a book in Barnes & Noble's (sp) talking about people who WERE gay. If you want to bring in people who are gay, then you should bring in people who were gay as well. Give the children both sides of the story, not just one. Hmm that kind of blows the whole homosexuality isn't a choice thing out of the water... man I am going to have to go buy that book.
Written by:
hmmm... offensive = making a remark with humourous intent and sexual inuendo about someone who's been dead for 2000 years....
non-offensive = telling some they are going to hell.
Both were opinoins, however one was offensive the other wasn't, yet when I said I would go to the Mods about an opinoin that offended me, I was called childish, why then when I said the other opinoin listed was it not considerd childish for that person to go to a Mod?
Written by:
you have a right to be offended by anything. but because lightning's views don't match yours you are going to report it to a mod? i'm sorry, but i think that's childish. he wasn't attacking anyone in his post, he was expressing an opinion. that's all i was saying.
I wasn't attacking anyone when I said that, I was expressing an opinoin.
Shoryuken!
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
Posted:
I once heard/read someone saying that of all the sexual deviancies, abstinence is the strangest and most dangerous. I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent.
Teenagers are geared towards sex, naturally. To try and tell them that their own minds are lying to them seems insane to me. Sure, to prevent STDs spreading, and teen pregnancies, then 100% abstinence would work, but it really isn't that simple. Its like saying "don't press the big red button" "don't look behind the golden door." It doesn't work in situations where mild curiosity is involved, let alone when faced with a teenage mind that is just gagging for sex!
Abstinence was never really seriously suggested at our school, but I know the same was true with drugs ed. Lying, or telling partial truths to children, just doesn't work in this age of communication. We were only really told about the downside of drugs (including booze.) Kinda like Dentrassi said, its hypocritical to tell kids that being drunk isn't fun, it just makes you dizzy, while an entire nation gets pissed nearly every night.
The way E is portrayed, its as though like a 1/4 of all users die from it. When your mate comes into school the next day with an article revealing that electric blankets kill more people than E, you start to wonder how much of what you've been told is BS. Thankfully we had an intelligent teacher who first showed us the government propaganda, but then went on to discuss both sides of every argument, both the plus sides and the negative.
Did you know that a lot of people do actually enjoy heroin? Yes, tell us that its highly addictive, that it kills hundreds, but don't try to pretend that there is nothing appealing about it. If all we're told is the negatives, and then a friend seems to totally blow it all out of the water by revealing that infact being high is amazing, there is a good chance that the important negative facts will just be discarded as typical adult fun-ruining tripe.
One of my teachers once told me about how he went to join a priesthood (or whatever they're called) but had to leave once he realised just how badly affected by abstinence a lot of his fellow scholars were becoming.
Its not fair that the words "priest" and "paedophile" go pretty much hand in hand nowadays, but it is certainly no accident.
Respect,
Davy
I once heard/read someone saying that of all the sexual deviancies, abstinence is the strangest and most dangerous. I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent.
Teenagers are geared towards sex, naturally. To try and tell them that their own minds are lying to them seems insane to me. Sure, to prevent STDs spreading, and teen pregnancies, then 100% abstinence would work, but it really isn't that simple. Its like saying "don't press the big red button" "don't look behind the golden door." It doesn't work in situations where mild curiosity is involved, let alone when faced with a teenage mind that is just gagging for sex!
Abstinence was never really seriously suggested at our school, but I know the same was true with drugs ed. Lying, or telling partial truths to children, just doesn't work in this age of communication. We were only really told about the downside of drugs (including booze.) Kinda like Dentrassi said, its hypocritical to tell kids that being drunk isn't fun, it just makes you dizzy, while an entire nation gets pissed nearly every night.
The way E is portrayed, its as though like a 1/4 of all users die from it. When your mate comes into school the next day with an article revealing that electric blankets kill more people than E, you start to wonder how much of what you've been told is BS. Thankfully we had an intelligent teacher who first showed us the government propaganda, but then went on to discuss both sides of every argument, both the plus sides and the negative.
Did you know that a lot of people do actually enjoy heroin? Yes, tell us that its highly addictive, that it kills hundreds, but don't try to pretend that there is nothing appealing about it. If all we're told is the negatives, and then a friend seems to totally blow it all out of the water by revealing that infact being high is amazing, there is a good chance that the important negative facts will just be discarded as typical adult fun-ruining tripe.
One of my teachers once told me about how he went to join a priesthood (or whatever they're called) but had to leave once he realised just how badly affected by abstinence a lot of his fellow scholars were becoming.
Its not fair that the words "priest" and "paedophile" go pretty much hand in hand nowadays, but it is certainly no accident.
Respect,
Davy
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Not all priests are held by the oath of selibicy (sp), I have never met someone who was affected by abstinence in a negative way. If a teenager is tought self controle, then they can not push the red button, and not look behind the golden door, they can also not have sex, not smoke, not do drugs and not drink.
Ever hear of the concept of mind over matter?
If you can learn street smarts, where to walk, what to wear, what not to wear, where not to walk and all that jazz, you can learn how to avoid situations that have the potential to lead towards sex, drugs, drinking, smoking... etc. You do not have to experiance these things to determine if you wish to do them or not.
That is where true education comes in. The TRUTH, show the children all sides of the stories, the side that makes you want to do the thing and the side that shows the consiquences of the peoples actions. To definatly include the lucky few who have done said action without experiancing negative results.
People enjoy heroin, and people enjoy being drunk, last I knew nobody enjoyed a hangover, or comming down off the high.
Not all priests are held by the oath of selibicy (sp), I have never met someone who was affected by abstinence in a negative way. If a teenager is tought self controle, then they can not push the red button, and not look behind the golden door, they can also not have sex, not smoke, not do drugs and not drink.
Ever hear of the concept of mind over matter?
If you can learn street smarts, where to walk, what to wear, what not to wear, where not to walk and all that jazz, you can learn how to avoid situations that have the potential to lead towards sex, drugs, drinking, smoking... etc. You do not have to experiance these things to determine if you wish to do them or not.
That is where true education comes in. The TRUTH, show the children all sides of the stories, the side that makes you want to do the thing and the side that shows the consiquences of the peoples actions. To definatly include the lucky few who have done said action without experiancing negative results.
People enjoy heroin, and people enjoy being drunk, last I knew nobody enjoyed a hangover, or comming down off the high.
GOLD Member
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posted:
This might diverge a bit from the topic, but it is my experience with coming out, and who I talked to to educate myself...
When I was struggling with coming out, I did talk to someone who claimed to be "cured of homosexuality."
The answer for her? She turned to God and put her faith in him. Is she truly happy now? Only she can answer that. I've not seen her since I came out. She wasn't the only friend I lost because I came out.
My talk with her made the torment that I Was living inside my own head worse. What she told me was what society was telling me, that the thoughts I had about women were wrong....but my entire being was yelling that it wasn't wrong and it was who I was.
I talked with a woman who was gay not long after, and I felt like Atlas having the weight of the world taken off of my shoulders. No, being gay wasn't really accepted within society, but if it was a part of who you were, you would do more damage trying to deny it than trying to understand it and come to terms with it.
I came out ELEVEN years ago, when things were a bit more hostile for gays and lesbians. I've had people yell obscenities at me for my sexuality...I've had friends who've had the crap beaten out of them for being gay. It isn't something you choose to be just on a whim or to be cool. Things are better now, sure, but it's still not an easy lifestyle. Coming out is a hard thing because you risk losing friends, as I Did, and you risk losing your family as friends of mind did.
The apparent cure of homosexuality mentioned in those books has been questioned by professional psychologists and psychiatrists. Many of the people who've been cured say they turned their lives to God.
If you question the scientific legitimacy of evolution, and don't think it should be presented in school, then neither should the supposed cure for homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not a disease and doesn't need to be cured, but you won't and can't understand that unless you've had to question your sexuality. No one can fully understand what a person goes through when they come out unless they themselves has come out.
This might diverge a bit from the topic, but it is my experience with coming out, and who I talked to to educate myself...
When I was struggling with coming out, I did talk to someone who claimed to be "cured of homosexuality."
The answer for her? She turned to God and put her faith in him. Is she truly happy now? Only she can answer that. I've not seen her since I came out. She wasn't the only friend I lost because I came out.
My talk with her made the torment that I Was living inside my own head worse. What she told me was what society was telling me, that the thoughts I had about women were wrong....but my entire being was yelling that it wasn't wrong and it was who I was.
I talked with a woman who was gay not long after, and I felt like Atlas having the weight of the world taken off of my shoulders. No, being gay wasn't really accepted within society, but if it was a part of who you were, you would do more damage trying to deny it than trying to understand it and come to terms with it.
I came out ELEVEN years ago, when things were a bit more hostile for gays and lesbians. I've had people yell obscenities at me for my sexuality...I've had friends who've had the crap beaten out of them for being gay. It isn't something you choose to be just on a whim or to be cool. Things are better now, sure, but it's still not an easy lifestyle. Coming out is a hard thing because you risk losing friends, as I Did, and you risk losing your family as friends of mind did.
The apparent cure of homosexuality mentioned in those books has been questioned by professional psychologists and psychiatrists. Many of the people who've been cured say they turned their lives to God.
If you question the scientific legitimacy of evolution, and don't think it should be presented in school, then neither should the supposed cure for homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not a disease and doesn't need to be cured, but you won't and can't understand that unless you've had to question your sexuality. No one can fully understand what a person goes through when they come out unless they themselves has come out.
Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
If you havn't spoken to her since comming out, why does that mean that it is because of you comming out?
Who in their right mind chooses a path that could lead to pain and suffering? (homosexuality) {I know very few gay people}
Who in their right mind kills themselves? {I know two people who have killed themeselves}
Who in their right mind cuts themselves to ease the pain? {I know one person who is a cutter, and another who I suspect is starting to cut}
Why would anyone choose to do those things?
I don't know, I've never done them, but I can speculate that it is because they see no other alternative. It doesn't mean that the alternative isn't out there, it just means that it isn't clear at that time, and once they choose that path, they choose to put on blinders to the fact that there is another way.
Yes, that is exactly why you MUST have both those who have chosen to be gay then, made the choice to not be gay, and those who make the choice to remain gay speaking so that the TRUTH can be heard.
If you havn't spoken to her since comming out, why does that mean that it is because of you comming out?
Who in their right mind chooses a path that could lead to pain and suffering? (homosexuality) {I know very few gay people}
Who in their right mind kills themselves? {I know two people who have killed themeselves}
Who in their right mind cuts themselves to ease the pain? {I know one person who is a cutter, and another who I suspect is starting to cut}
Why would anyone choose to do those things?
I don't know, I've never done them, but I can speculate that it is because they see no other alternative. It doesn't mean that the alternative isn't out there, it just means that it isn't clear at that time, and once they choose that path, they choose to put on blinders to the fact that there is another way.
Written by:
Homosexuality is not a disease and doesn't need to be cured, but you won't and can't understand that unless you've had to question your sexuality. No one can fully understand what a person goes through when they come out unless they themselves has come out.
Yes, that is exactly why you MUST have both those who have chosen to be gay then, made the choice to not be gay, and those who make the choice to remain gay speaking so that the TRUTH can be heard.
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Okay, Dom has brought something to my attention that made me think a bit on what I have said.
Evoloution as a means of creation is not provable, it should not be tought as fact in any school room. However, evoloution can and does exist, however it is no where near the scale that evoloution as a means of creation would have you think.
Human kind has evolved, this is unmistakably true. It can not be argued away, however, there is no proof that mankind and every other species of animal, plant or whatever, has evolved from nothingness.
If someone wishes to prove to me that another theory other than creationisim is true, show me the begining.
Okay, Dom has brought something to my attention that made me think a bit on what I have said.
Evoloution as a means of creation is not provable, it should not be tought as fact in any school room. However, evoloution can and does exist, however it is no where near the scale that evoloution as a means of creation would have you think.
Human kind has evolved, this is unmistakably true. It can not be argued away, however, there is no proof that mankind and every other species of animal, plant or whatever, has evolved from nothingness.
If someone wishes to prove to me that another theory other than creationisim is true, show me the begining.
SILVER Member
Keeper of the Spitfire
2,317 posts
Location: Calgary Canada
Keeper of the Spitfire
2,317 posts
Location: Calgary Canada
Posted:
I think I speak for most people when I say this isn't the case.
For me personally, in the three years when I was unsure of my sexuality, I tried everything to convince myself that I wasn't gay, as being straight was most certainly the easier route to take.
In the past four years, after I have accepted and come to love who I am, I have certainly not put on any blinders to the fact that there is another way.
Before I met Spitfire, if I'd met a bloke and happened to fall in love with him then so be it. I didn't expect that it would happen, but have always kept an open mind about this.
From conversations I have had with other people (both gay and straight), there are a LOT more people who are equally as open minded.
You say you know very few people who are homosexual.
Then why is it fair for you to speculate and preach the reasons behind homosexuality?
How do you know what people go through before, during and after coming out to themselves and others?
And what makes you think that, once we realise who we are, we have to put on blinders to realise this is our path to take?
What makes you think that being homosexual leads to pain and suffering?
I can think of LOTS of things that lead to pain and suffering. Being homosexual would not be very high on that list.
Sorry if I strayed from the topic of the thread slightly, but I felt I needed to address these issues which I found quite offending.
Written by: Burzaruka
It doesn't mean that the alternative isn't out there, it just means that it isn't clear at that time, and once they choose that path, they choose to put on blinders to the fact that there is another way.
I think I speak for most people when I say this isn't the case.
For me personally, in the three years when I was unsure of my sexuality, I tried everything to convince myself that I wasn't gay, as being straight was most certainly the easier route to take.
In the past four years, after I have accepted and come to love who I am, I have certainly not put on any blinders to the fact that there is another way.
Before I met Spitfire, if I'd met a bloke and happened to fall in love with him then so be it. I didn't expect that it would happen, but have always kept an open mind about this.
From conversations I have had with other people (both gay and straight), there are a LOT more people who are equally as open minded.
You say you know very few people who are homosexual.
Then why is it fair for you to speculate and preach the reasons behind homosexuality?
How do you know what people go through before, during and after coming out to themselves and others?
And what makes you think that, once we realise who we are, we have to put on blinders to realise this is our path to take?
Written by:
Who in their right mind chooses a path that could lead to pain and suffering? (homosexuality)
What makes you think that being homosexual leads to pain and suffering?
I can think of LOTS of things that lead to pain and suffering. Being homosexual would not be very high on that list.
Sorry if I strayed from the topic of the thread slightly, but I felt I needed to address these issues which I found quite offending.
Lets steal a spaceship and head for the sun, and shoot the stars with a lemonade ray gun.
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com