 |
Hello Righty's:
Here's the problem. You don't want sex education in school. You don't want condoms handed to your kids. You're NOT going to teach them at home about sex. You pretend that they won't have sex. When they get pregnant, you don't want them to have an abortion. After the baby is born, you don't care about the baby's welfare, his health or even if he lives on the street.
You guys are a piece of work.
excon
And women didn't have to be at home any longer 24/7, but could have jobs and freedom. People could buy fresh meat after six p.m. and could shop at many places after that same time; stores stayed open until 9! Expressways and interstates were built across the U.S. so it no longer took six days to travel from NC to ID. People didn't have to always dress like they were going to church; dress became more casual. Married women didn't have worry about producing more children than they could afford. Society (slowly) became more egalitarian with equal advantages, so people could work for success. (Color) Television came into many homes, adding entertainment and educational possibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Ex, sorry buddy but that's bullsh*t. You oughtta know better by now than to try and get such such BS past me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
That's what the parents in the '30s and '40s and '50s and early '60s did -- they did not talk about sex, because talking about it would make their kids want to try it out. If parents didn't mention it, the kids would never, ever know about it until their wedding night.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What does what ex said have to do with what "parents in the '30s and '40s and '50s and early '60s" did? He's talking about us - now - and it's bullsh*t.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I know you don't like it put into such crass terms, but what, in particular, wasn't correct?
The only thing that MIGHT be incorrect, is what you right winged Christians teach your children about sex. My GUESS is you don't include birth control in that discussion, and the main thrust (pun intended) would be to WAIT until marriage to have sex.
Please tell me about your support for the poor single mothers and their hungry children. I must have missed it. As a matter of fact, didn't one of your rightwinged sisters, a CONGRESSWOMAN in fact, say recently that hunger is a good motivator for kids?? She DID!!
Do you want me to dig up her name? I will.
excon
Yep... alll true. And you know what? Fewer kids got pregnant. Fewer people got STDs. Seems to me that despite the fact that so many people had to figure it out the hard way on their wedding nights and the fact that so many teens didn't know how and usually ended up making a fool of themselves with a girl in the hayloft or in the back seat of their Chevy, things were actually better. There was lot's of "heavy petting" as it was called, but very little actual sex. There were fewer kids getting in trouble with pregnancy or getting sick from STDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And if the goal of sex ed, as most proponents say, is to prevent teen pregnancy and prevent STDs, then perhaps we should go back to what worked in the old days.
Yeah, kids fumbled around more... and even adults fumbled around more. So what? Kids were safer, and adults still figured out how to make babies for the next generation of kids.
Seems to me that the good ol' days really were good.
Elliot
Here's the problem as I see it: You want the government to teach your kids about sex, because you're too lazy to do it yourself. You want the government to pay for your abortions, because you don't want to pay for them yourself. You want the government to hand out condoms because you're too lazy to keep an eye on your kids and keep them out of trouble yourself. You want the government to pay for the kids health care because you're too cheap and lazy to do it yourself. You want the government to give the kid benefits paid for by the tax dollars earned by others because you're too cheap and lazy to pay for it yourself. And you don't give a cr@p about how paying for all this affects the rest of the people, because you are too self-centered to care about anyone but yourself and the benefits you think you deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You guys are a piece of work.
Elliot
Most of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Not true, we don't want Planned Parenthood type "comprehensive sex education" from kindergarten on. We don't want schools and pro-abortion groups like PP undermining parental authority. We want the option to opt out of programs that offend our morals and undermine our rights as parents. In short, we want to retain our right to be the parent, free from what we see as the damaging, offensive, one-sided bullsh*t propagandas and agendas of these groups.Quote:
You don't want sex education in school.
True.Quote:
You don't want condoms handed to your kids.
A bold assumption which you admit.Quote:
You're NOT going to teach them at home about sex.
There is no evidence to come to that conclusion. We're not clueless neanderthals.Quote:
You pretend that they won't have sex.
True. And according to the rhetoric from abortion providers, neither do they. They SAY they want abortion to be rare, but it's "just words."Quote:
When they get pregnant, you don't want them to have an abortion.
That is the biggest bullsh*t line of them all. Who do you think is at the forefront of promoting and facilitating adoption, ministering to the emotional needs of women in crisis, providing shelters, food, clothing, diapers and other assistance? It darn sure isn't Planned Parenthood.Quote:
After the baby is born, you don't care about the baby's welfare, his health or even if he lives on the street.
Guess being the operative word. And what's wrong if our main 'thrust' would be to wait, they're MY kids not yours.Quote:
My GUESS is you don't include birth control in that discussion, and the main thrust (pun intended) would be to WAIT until marriage to have sex.
You must have because I have documented here recently, reluctantly. I don't generally talk about what I do for others because I don't need the validation and what I do is between me, them and God. If you look, you'll find it... and you'll also see one of my foes on this subject acknowledge it.Quote:
Please tell me about your support for the poor single mothers and their hungry children. I must have missed it.
And I have to pay for what one moron said? I'll remember that next time Biden opens his mouth.Quote:
As a matter of fact, didn't one of your rightwinged sisters, a CONGRESSWOMAN in fact, say recently that hunger is a good motivator for kids?? She DID!!
Yep. And it worked. Fewer kids got pregnant. Fewer got STDs. A few did, but much fewer than today, despite sex ed supposedly designed to prevent teen pregnancies and STDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Elliot
I think the point everyone is trying to make is that it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids about sex. But when parents don't teach their kids about sex or they only teach them half of what the kids should know then the school should step in and do something about it.
But as usual that goes over the rights head and they think the left wants the government to do it. Which is not true at all.
I have been saying for years (at least 15 yrs) that the sex education system as it is is what is causing teens to become pregnant. Having more relationships and basically turning many into sluts and unwed mothers. That is why they were trying to introduce the abstinence alternative to be taught along side the sex education.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I think there is something wrong with a society that has kids coming to sites like this asking what is wrong with them because they are 16 or 22 and still a virgin.
I have been telling people for years that the more sexual relationships you get into and the more porn you are watching the more desensitized you can become. I see how males have such a hard time bonding any more and I believe that the convenience of sex is only the tip of the ice berg.
I actually got the facts on what I have been talking about now.
Hug the Monkey: Oxytocin: The Book
His Brain, Her Brain: Scientific American
Well, that's the point that we conservatives are making. The libs seem to be up in the air on that one. Many seem to believe that it is primarily the job of the schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Here is where we conservatives disagree. We believe that even if parents fail to do the job, it is NOT the job of the schools or the government to teach sex ed to our kids.Quote:
But when parents don't teach their kids about sex or they only teach them half of what the kids should know then the school should step in and do something about it.
Ahh... but they do. Or at least some of them do. If Excon is to be believed, only the schools can possibly do the job right. It seems that many others share that opinion.Quote:
But as usual that goes over the rights head and they think the left wants the government to do it. Which is not true at all.
Seems to me that you can only talk about what YOU believe. YOU believe that the job is really with the parents, but if they fail, then it's the job of the schools. Excon seems to disagree with your representation, and you have misprepresented what I believe as well, and what I believe that other conservatives here believe.
So... rather than try to explain "the point that everyone is trying to make", why don't you stick to making the point that YOU want to make. Let others make their own point.
Elliot
Come on spit, I've seen at least twice here that we parents are failures so these things MUST be taught in school, and I've argued with them enough to know that's in spite of our wishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Yes they insist it is up to the schools or we wouldn't be where we are today. Back in the 60's the subject was taboo so many parents didn't tell their kids anything so the people that wanted sex education used that to their advantage and look where it has gotten us.
Teens having babies and having the social programs support them. Then the tax payers complain that the money is coming out of their pocket yet they do not connect the dots that led it to this.
You may claim it is not the left pushing these but the Right has always been about morality. Remember the left mocking 'the moral majority' in the 80's
Bingo, you couldn't have hit the nail more squarely on its head.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Hello El and Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You guys always bring up morons from the left. I'll stop if you'll stop.
Yes, El, the old days were good. But, it had nothing to do with MORALS, as you would have us believe. It had to do with pregnancy. The pill took care of that.
So, as good as the old days were, we are NOT going to DIS-INVENT the birth control pill. I'm sorry to bring you the news, but the "old days" ain't going to happen again. To WISH that they would magically reappear isn't a very smart political position.
excon
If I read your comment correctly even if a parent does a P*ss poor job of educating their child then the child should just remain ignorant of sex. Basically let them get a STD or get pregnant and that'll learn 'em.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You don't see a flaw in that approach?
ET someone has to pick up the slack for the good of the country.
Same here. I couldn't agree more. I credit my parents and my sex ed teachers in high school. I too, have zero kids and have had zero abortions.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
The problem is that it is being treated like an either/or thing either we go back to the mistakes of the 50's and 60's or we keep having the schools doing what they have been doing and having the problems it creates.
The way it is now kids see sex as something you have to do to be normal.
I think the major point that is being over looked is teaching the kids responsibility
What ever happened to the program where the kids had to take the doll and could not leave it. If it cried you had to get it to calm down. If you left it unattended it cried.
Also the empathy pregnancy thing where you wear a thing that lets you feel how a pregnant woman feels.
Then there is the fact that many guys are paying child support out to different moms for the next 18 years or more.
Then there is the fact that many teen moms get tired of the responsibility of being mom and want their teen life back and end up passing the baby off to their mom.
The most effective thing though I think may be to teach kids about finding real love and not settling for less because of the oxytocin and bonding and how having sex outside of a good relation can diminish bonding abilities and desensitizes them to truly loving.
Which is why I believe many guys find it hard to actually be a good boyfriend and why many girls are crying that he changed over the months or years. They simply mistake the sex for the love and then the novelty of the sex wears off.
http://www.bio.uci.edu/public/press/...isherbrain.pdf
Research has shown that women who were currently involved in a committed relationship experienced greater oxytocin swells in response to positive emotions than single women, leading researchers to speculate that a close, regular relationship may influence the responsiveness of the hormone. So, do the math:
•Oxytocin is produced as a result of touch
•Oxytocin causes feelings of intimacy and closeness
•Oxytocin triggers powerful orgasms
•Women in committed relationships experience enhanced oxytocin production
The facts would suggest that women in committed relationships have better sex!
Oxytocin Hormone: The Cuddle Hormone is the Body's Own Love Potion - Filly.ca
Teen Abstinence Oxytocin
The difference is we don't judge all of the left by one moron, we criticize our own morons like Mark Sanford and the foot tapper for instance, PLUS we don't celebrate our morons like "cold cash" Jefferson and that slippery Murtha guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hey speech didn't Murtha Say he does it all for his constituents and he would do it again?! What a Dbag
Yep it took more than one moron to screw up politics as well as it took one moron to screw up social problems.
That is the flaw I see in Ets way. He does not provide a back up plan. It would be great if all parents did their job correctly, but when they don't , who steps in? I'm waiting on his answer because he seems to always answer by saying... It's not the goverments job, or the schools job. Should there not be a back up plan?Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Huh... I think you are confused here. In the old days (30s - 60s), teens didn't get pregnant because they didn't have sex. They didn't have sex because nobody taught them how. The pill is NOT the reason they didn't get pregnant.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Sex ed taught kids who would otherwise not known about sex how to have sex. The pill gave them the excuse to have sex without worrying about getting pregnant. Problem is that the pill isn't 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. Not even close. And it most certainly doesn't stop the spread of STDs.
I say things were better in the 30s-60s when kids just didn't have sex.
I'm not saying we should disinvent the pill. I'm saying we should disinvent sex ed.Quote:
So, as good as the old days were, we are NOT going to DIS-INVENT the birth control pill.
Is there a reason that eliminating sex ed from schools is an impossible political position? I certainly don't think so. It is very likely to happen. Just as in the UK, they are dropping the program because it has failed based on the numbers (see the OP), we could just as easily drop it here.Quote:
I'm sorry to bring you the news, but the "old days" ain't going to happen again. To WISH that they would magically reappear isn't a very smart political position.
Excon
As for issues of morality, YOU are the one arguing about morality. I'm talking about the numbers. MORE kids are getting pregnant today than in the old days. MORE kids are getting STDs than in the old days. Sex ed has not served to reduce the number of teen pregnancies or the spread of STDs. Ergo, sex ed in schools is a failure at it's stated goal. What we had BEFORE sex ed worked better at preventing teen pregnancy and STD spread. It's not a moral issue, it's a simple numbers issue. And the numbers alone say you are wrong in supporting sex ed.
But you can't argue with those facts and numbers, so you prefer to question my moral position... a moral position that I haven't even brought up.
You're floundering, excon.
Elliot
Actually, what I'm saying --- and the historical numbers bear this up as fact --- is that kids without sex ed are less likely to have sex, get pregnant or have STDs. Kids from the 1930s-1960s didn't have sex ed, and had sex before marriage much less often. That is historical fact, and not really subject to debate. You can try, the but the numbers are pretty cut and dry.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Therefore, if I do, as you say, "a pi$$ poor job" of educating my kids about sex, there is a greater likelihood they won't have sex in the first place. Which means they won't get pregnant or get STDs.
In your hypothetical case of me doing a "pi$$ poor job" of teaching my kids about sex and then not having sex ed in school, my kids are less likely to have sex than a similar kid who is poorly educated at home and DOES have sex ed in school.
So again, given your hypothetical case, I'd say the country is better off without sex ed in schools to teach kids how to screw around. A kids who is completely clueless about sex is less likely to engage in it than one who has the book knowledge from a sex ed class. Again, we can compare the example of the kids of the 30s - 60s, who's parents didn't teach them sex and neither did their schools, to today's kids who's parents don't teach them about sex, but who DO get sex ed in school. The kids who didn't have sex ed were less likely to have sex than the ones with sex ed.
So in response to your final sentence: NO, we don't have to pick up the slack for the good of the country. Trying to pick up the slack for the good of the country is what caused the problem in the first place and has resulted in that problem growing, not shrinking as expected.
Elliot
ET did I say you did a P*ss poor job or did I say a parent. Man you got some ego on you to think I was saying you did a P*ss poor job. But I would expect that from someone who thinks he is wolverine.
All I can say is thank goodness that my parents and my sex ed teacher did their jobs or maybe I would have a 15 year old right now.
I never accused you of saying it was me you were referring to. I was using myself as an example because it's less impolite than saying "you". "I" and "me" statements are just more polite than trying to point to others.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
You seem to spitting quite a bit of venom at others today for no reason...
Elliot
I apologize then I admit I am feeling a bit ornery today. Just itching to get done this week and go on vacation.
I didn't want to say you did a bad job because it sounds like you teach your kids well.
I appreciate that. No harm done.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Or as they say where I come from, "No blood no foul." ;)
Elliot
Yes no blood no foul!! Words I live by!
My children brought home letters from school a few weeks ago asking for my consent on sex education lessons.
It is a new lesson starting from age 4-12 in our school.
After a bot of thought I gathered if the school thought it a good lesson then I would agree.
My 5 and 7 year old's first lesson was them being introduced to massage!
Yes you can imagine the thoughts running through my head when I asked them about school lessons that day and my 6 year old son piped up " we did massage on introduced".
I then was informed that the massage class was to teach the children that before we touch another person we have to ALWAYS ALWAYS ask permission and no matter how much we want to touch that person if they say NO then NO means No.
I thought it a very positive approach to them being taught to respect other's bodies.
My 10 year old on the other side had a more productive lesson.
While I was having a bath she came to sit and her nightly girly mum and daughter chat.
I almost drowned when she piped up " You have had sex 5 times mum aint you!?
"Why do you think that " I managed to ask
She then went on to inform me that to have babies you have to have sex and as I have 5 children I have in her account had sex 5 times. This she was pleased with.
When I informed her that you can have sexual intercourse without the result of a baby she found it disgusting! She could not understand if you did not want a baby why would you want to do such a thing.
My 10 year old now knows all about the protective contraception methods ( she listed more than I could think of)
Then bless she pointed to my cotton wool pads ( make up remover pads) and stated proudly she would need them soon.
I asked why 9expecting her to say she would be using my foundation soon) to be told " Well when I start bleeding I will need pads"
Bless xxxx
One other aspect of this discussion that so far has not been broached. Television/movies/advertising all have contributed to promiscuous sex which had brought on the discussion today. Kids just have too much time and too much money on their hands. One of the arguments has dealt with the 30's-60's. But you have to remember that prior to WWII this country was really more rural than urban. Kids were either going to school or working the family farm/ranch, and did not have time or money to get into trouble. It was a great occasion to go into town on a Saturday night to go to a movie. And when you went to that movie the most you would see might be a kiss. What is so bad about wanting to return our society to a time when you were not afraid to leave your home at night? Your kids could play in the neighborhood after dark with out fear of being snatched? And the worst thing that happened was the neighbors out house got tipped over. Why is it that liberals do not see the foolish path that we are being led down and not want change for the better. Heck, if you really want to get right down to it. If we were to return to a moral society maybe people like alkaida would stop trying to destroy us.
You better make sure they get sex off TV, music clips, magazines and every other form of media kids are exposed to these days as well... You're dreaming if you think eliminating sex ed will eliminate / reduce kids exposure to sex. Absolutely dreaming...Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
And I'm not a believer of comprehensive sex ed in schools. If some parents want to choose not to have their kids participate then fine. They can make that choice. I also don't believe it should be taught until a certain age. Certainly not in primary school (that's until about the age of 12 - 13 down here). I do however feel that physical education which includes learning about one's body and its sexual organs and how they work is an essential part of one's development. To deprive a teenager or young adult of that seems insane to me.
Do you suggest that no sexual education be carried out at all unless it is from the parent? Does this include teaching children about their body and its reproductive organs at school?
I tend to agree with you. But a return to those days just isn't going to happen. And to hold out hope waiting is valuable time lost in finding other ways to fix the problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Do you agree?
Sadly no. I do not agree with that. There are ways to fix the problems with our country. But most people are unwilling to give up the wealth that sex brings them. While I know it is not all of the problems, the fix needs to start at the bottom with moral parents and parenting most people are not willing to do what is necessary. Does not stop me and other like minded families from doing their part to stop the root of the problem. Then we as parents and voting adults need to hold our elected officials to a higher standard. Those that fail must be removed from office as fast as possible and replaced with people of good moral character. It can be done.
You're a good man, Skell. To me that would be a reasonable compromise. Just leave the agendas out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Perfect example of what I'm talking about, Mum2Five. Thanks for posting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mum2five
First of all, can we find no better way to teach 5-year-old kids to respect each other's private space and not to touch each other without permission than to teach them massage? What was the point of the massage part, other than to teach "the pleasure of touch"? And what is the point of teaching that other than to get kids sexually interested... at the age of 5. If the goal of the lesson was to teach kids to respect each other's bodies and rights to not be touched, teaching massage was not only unnecessary, it may have been countreproductive. It taught kids to touch each other in a manner that, if extended not too much farther, can become sexual.
Then there's the 10-year-old daughter. Despite the fact that the child is obviously bright, she does not yet have an understanding that sex can happen without resulting in a baby. She knows about contraception, but she doesn't know that sex can also be an act of love between two people, or for that matter it can be "sport", and NOT result in a baby. Is she ready for that fact? I don't know and neither does the school. Mum2five can answer that question, because she knows her daughter. But the school CAN'T. And therein lies the problem with a school-based curriculum of sex ed. It cannot gauge the abilities of the children on an individual basis.
Elliot
Don't think I don't have issues with sex on TV. I do. But I handle that by monitoring what my kids watch. That's another issue that too many parents want to leave to the government to handle through government censorship rather than taking the time to monitor their kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
I have no problem with a biology lesson on human biology that includes a description of sexual organs or a discussion of gestation and embryonic development in humans. What I have a problem with is a sex ed class that describes how to use the sexual organs and then encourages it by telling kids how to use them without getting into trouble.
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I was about to post that I agree with both Steve and Skell that sex education should be about the parts, and not how, when, or even IF the parts should be used.
You, and the Woverine apparently believe that sex education not only tells kids about their parts, but ENCOURAGES them to use 'em.
You'll have to forgive me, but I don't believe that. You'll have to direct me to a person, ANY PERSON, whether he be a member of the ACLU, the American Socialist Party, or Planned Parenthood, who thinks kids SHOULD screw.
I know you have a screwed view of the left, but screwing isn't something we think kids should do. Hard to believe, isn't it?
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:42 PM. |