[speechlesstx]

Hello El and Steve:

You guys always bring up morons from the left. I'll stop if you'll stop.

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.

[spitvenom]

Hey speech didn't Murtha Say he does it all for his constituents and he would do it again?! What a Dbag

[N0help4u]

Yep it took more than one moron to screw up politics as well as it took one moron to screw up social problems.

[cozyk]

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.

You don't see a flaw in that approach?

ET someone has to pick up the slack for the good of the country.

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?

[ETWolverine]

Hello El and Steve:

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.

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.

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.

So, as good as the old days were, we are NOT going to DIS-INVENT the birth control pill.

I'm not saying we should disinvent the pill. I'm saying we should disinvent sex ed.

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

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.

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

[ETWolverine]

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.

You don't see a flaw in that approach?

ET someone has to pick up the slack for the good of the country.

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.

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

[spitvenom]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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.

You seem to spitting quite a bit of venom at others today for no reason...

Elliot

[spitvenom]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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.

Or as they say where I come from, "No blood no foul." ;)

Elliot

[spitvenom]

Yes no blood no foul!! Words I live by!

[mum2five]

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

[450donn]

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.

[Skell]

I say things were better in the 30s-60s when kids just didn't have sex.

Elliot

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...

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?

[Skell]

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.

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.

Do you agree?

[450donn]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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 til 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.

You're a good man, Skell. To me that would be a reasonable compromise. Just leave the agendas out of it.

[ETWolverine]

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

Perfect example of what I'm talking about, Mum2Five. Thanks for posting it.

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

[ETWolverine]

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...

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 til 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?

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.

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

[excon]

You're a good man, Skell. To me that would be a reasonable compromise. Just leave the agendas out of it.

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.

Hello again, El:

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