Sex Education

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by aliveboi, Dec 17, 2007.

  1. aliveboi

    aliveboi New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's an article in Sunday's Washington Post that in increasing number of states (currently 14 states) are opting out of federal funding for sex education because of the "abstinence only" requirement at is attached to the federal dollars.

    For those of you with kids, how do you feel about teaching high school children about the use of condoms and other forms of birth control? (I don't have kids, yet, so it may be too easy for me to reject "abstinence only" education off hand.)
     
  2. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    I was fine with telling my kids about sex, relationships and birth control, in an ideal world I think parents are the best people to tell their kids these things, but not all parents feel able to, if parents can't bring themselves to tell their kids because of embarrassment or awkwardness then a school is probably the next best thing, but for the schools to opt out is ridiculous, they have to learn it from some reliable source. If kids aren't taught about sex, safe sex and relationships it will result in even more sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies.
     
  3. pronatalist

    pronatalist Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    I am for "abstinence only" or whatever they want to call it, because I don't like Planned unParenthood coming in advertising their shoddy stuff that don't work so well, to sell people abortions.

    And I would want my children to know how much they are wanted, in explaning to them why their parents don't use any means of "birth control," as more children are always welcome, if God allows us to have more.

    One objection somebody told me, to "Sex Education," is how they use it to break down natural modesty between the sexes, by talking about it in co-ed classes. That's an interesting point.

    Sure, children should learn about sex from their parents, but if not, still they should not hear it from those promoting sexual immorality or promiscuity, under the guise of "everybody's doing it," or "safer sex." So count me in the "abstinence only" category.

    If I was to tell my children about contraceptives, which I probably would have to at some point, I would tell them why we don't believe in using them, and all the social problems they are associated with and why, and that sex isn't meant to be profaned into a carnal and selfish act, but a loving and life-giving act best reserved for a stable marriage relationship. It's a very loving and beautiful thing to do, for parents to do their part in enlarging the human race, so that all the more fellow humans may experience or enjoy life.

    Besides, I don't agree with all this trendy "family planning" nonsense, but in the old "traditional" flow of life, in that people should welcome the children they were meant to have, and the elegance and naturalness and beauty of the "no method" method of "family planning," ought to be emphasized again. The body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant, without all the magical potions/poisons that they tell us that we supposedly, for some strange illogical reason, somehow now need to "control" our fertility, when actually fertility is a fragile blessing that can fade quickly with advancing age.
     
  4. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    I hope you're not speaking to anyone on this site in a sexually immoral way.

    In the old traditional 'flow of life' half of the kids people had would die in infancy so it made sense to have loads, the body doesn't know when to get pregnant, it can get pregnant when a woman is suffering from malnutrition, terminal illness or when she's just had triplets.
     
  5. pronatalist

    pronatalist Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    Re: Sex Education—If it's really Education, they don't add "Education" at the end.

    We don't have Math Education or Reading Education. It's just Math or Arithmetic or Algebra.

    It still makes sense to have "loads" of kids, expecting most every baby to grow up, marry, and have still more children.

    You say that the body doesn't know when to get pregnant? Are you so sure? Women don't usually get pregnant, when already pregnant, and breastfeeding is said to somewhat delay the next pregnancy. Why can't a woman who has just had triplets, have another baby? Natural family size, is supposed to be "traditionally very large," not "modern" pidly small. Parents who already have children, have experience raising children, and so are natural candidates for having still more children.

    I think my children would be better off, to be welcome to come alive, even if I was too old or "terminally ill" to raise them for so long. Isn't that why we name guardians for our children?

    And what you said about malnutrition. Food wasn't meant to be a "contraceptive" for humans at least. And isn't there some theory that a population "under stress" could be a signal to breed? Doesn't war tend to promote the idea of it being "patriotic" to have children, for the sake of one's nation or something?
     
  6. pronatalist

    pronatalist Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    I went to some meeting many years ago, debating how Sex Ed should be taught, and the "division" in the room was embarassingly clear.

    Most all the parents wanted morality being promoted, and stood for anybody who spoke for abstinence, while the edu-crats clung to the idea "They're going to do it anyway," so why hold them to any moral expectations?

    Can you start to see why parents are withdrawing their children from liberal-dominated government monopoly schools in droves, to private or home-school?

    When did it stop being "rude" to contradict the training of the parents to their children?
     
  7. Male Bonding etc

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest USA
    Oh, well, yes, of course, lots of children are wonderful, natural parts of human life... and if we weren't seeing too many people living without and too many others consuming too much, and if we didn't have issues with resources and pollution and war... sure, it would be great to procreate like crazy.

    BUT... have you noticed that there are places where people are indeed starving? places where two (or more!) groups of people claim the right to live? places where the rising temperatures are making it harder (if not impossible) to continue inhabiting the area?

    There may be ways to solve these problems other than restricting births, but we don't seem to be finding them fast enough, and more people living on this earth with the same unsolved problems hardly seems to be the solution.
     
  8. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    When did telling kids not to do something ever stop them protonatalist? Give kids the knowledge to make an informed choice rather than just saying 'don't do it' in the hopes they're going to listen.
     
  9. CUBE

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    7,331
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,180
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The OC
    Got to tell you...high school as the time to start talking is a wee bit late
     
  10. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    Yeah I know that, the time to answer your kids questions is as and when they ask them.
     
  11. whatireallywant

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Female
    I definitely think comprehensive sex education should be taught. Parents should do this as well, but sometimes the parents don't want to think of their children as even thinking about sex, and so won't teach them anything, or in the case of my parents, they did but didn't know enough about certain subjects to adequately teach me. (I didn't get those subjects in school either, my school took an "abstinence only" approach in the mid 70s. I heard of quite a few girls from my class who had babies at age 15 and 16, too...hmmm....)

    This is one of the "unconventional views" I fear for being hated for - nearly everyone I know has thought that sex education should not be in schools at all, or should only be abstinence and preach fear and guilt (even in public schools).
     
  12. pronatalist

    pronatalist Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,025
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    Re: Sex Education — Does it promote the natural human flow of life?

    Oh, I am quite sure there are far better alternatives than "limiting" births, and we could find and develop them quite a lot faster, were it much of a priority. I don't think people are consuming too much, near as much as some appear guilty of "conspicuous consumption," living just to use stuff up because they are rich, or "better than everybody else." Yack, yack, yack on the cellular phone, about pretty much nothing, while driving of course? Why can't people be found at home anymore? Did everybody have some party on Mars, and they didn't invite me? Where are all these people, that they are rarely found home when you call them or stop by?

    And don't you think various groups of people can mix and interbreed? Oh, you must be talking of Muslims, they don't mix well, due to their false religion and fanaticism. Some are more tolerant, but some want to force false religion on everybody and corrupt the government and society. Many groups of people do tend to mix actually. Societies quite often are rather mixed these days, ethnically and also quite co-ed. I welcome high-density housing, but not as some "environmental" extremist way to keep people out of the "wild" places, but as a way to fit more people into less space, if or as they want, to keep their housing abundant and affordable enough for even the working poor. Let people live in houses, huge apartment complexes, skyscrapers, city, countryside, as they would choose.

    I often speak about the injustice of greedy unaccountable corporations, and how economies are supposed to work for everybody and not just the elite few.

    Rising temperature? Refer to that "global warming" fraud thread around here somewhere? Global warming is about the most incredibly weak theory I can imagine. There can't prove there is any global warming, they can't prove that it is significant, they can't prove that humans are the cause, they can't prove that the effects will be dire, nor can they prove that we can do anything to "fix" it. One of the best theories, is that it most closely correlates to activity of the sun, and something similar is effecting Mars. Does it matter what the cause is? Technically no, but actually, yes. Because if it can't be so easily blamed on man, then more likely, radical non-solutions won't be seen as likely "fixing" it. If it's just natural cycles or natural, or within nature's ability to cope, or whatever, then how do we imagine that any change in human activities can "correct" it?

    I was glad to hear, for a refreshing change, a news story about "zone creep." They claim, due to "warming," that gardeners are delighted that they can grow crops where they live, that supposedly can grow in a slightly warmer part of the world. Notice how people cluster near the equator and away from the poles of the planet. People prefer it warmer. I have a far better theory that I really wish people would consider.

    What if, somehow, perhaps due to the increasingly "huge" size of the world population, nature was "warming up" to us, and encouraging us to multiply all the more? For I see people as not having a "parasitic" relationship with nature, as the enviro-wackos too often opine, but more a symbiotic relationship. Therefore, adding more people, alters nature to more favor there being more people. Sort of like a runaway "vicious circle" in the morally positive sense, win-win for everybody. The more populated we get, the better we get at supporting huge populations.

    Advocating more births, at least helps focus people in the right direction, towards accomodating the already huge population better, already here, rather than finding excessive excuses to be divided and working against one another. And besides, as I read somewhere, reproducing is one of the few things, that most people actually do well. So don't take that away from them!
     
  13. Male Bonding etc

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest USA
    Thanks, Pro, for coming right out and saying some of the things you've been thinking. I for one appreciate it. I do disagree with you, but I appreciate your openness.
     
  14. Love-it

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Northern California
    Pronatalist - How many children do you have and/or want?
     
  15. Male Bonding etc

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest USA
    I'm not sure why our friend here feels that our natural inclinations to populate the earth need boosting.

    The reality is that civilized and educated people do combat those urges because they respond to more than their instincts. While there are plenty of people reverting to primal behaviors and ignoring the devastating effects of overpopulation, some of us recognize that our ability to effectively and equitably distribute and use the limited resources available to us is not keeping up with our ability to populate the earth.

    In the end, perhaps sooner than some expect, our human population may well be the end of most life on the planet (we can expect roaches and many other non-human forms of life to continue). The frightening thing to many of us is that some people see that end as the coming of a "rapture" or other religious manifestation, and they actively promote it by whatever means they can.
     
  16. B_ScaredLittleBoy

    B_ScaredLittleBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,337
    Likes Received:
    8
    I don't ignore my instincts, I just cover them in latex...

    And about the topic:

    I'm not sure but isn't "abstinence only" at the exclusion of discussing birth control, STD's etc? At least in a non-biased way.

    I think all aspects of sex should be taught/discussed. Everyone needs to see their teacher sheath a banana. It's kind of erotic... :tongue:

    Teaching only one small part of a vast subject isn't good education. If RE was 'Catholicism only' and being funded by the state - do you think many schools would remain funded by the state? Or at least would want to? I know some schools are controlled and 'guided' by the state's funding policies.
     
  17. B_blackkid

    B_blackkid New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    MN, USA
    The problem lies within the checks and balances.

    It's not the birthrate that matters, but the death rate. We're not letting anyone die and we're letting everyone live. The two main components for solving the problems are being combated today regardless of how senseless they are to fight against.

    First is suicide, specifically euthenasia, which is foolish to restrict or deny as the people who seek this form of death are often old, and as we know statistically old men hold the highest suicide rates of male anyway so there's no reason to believe making Old Man Jonah live an extra five years is going to make him happier than he was five years ago.

    The Second is Abortion; rather than letting people who A) know they made a mistake, and cannot take care of the child B) simply are unwilling to take care of the child, and C) just don't want their child to suffer "The System" because of the parents fault ( which can act as a prolonged guilt... ) as well as medical reasons and mental health reasons is also foolish.

    Whether you believe either is right or wrong doesn't matter, it's how functional they are that does. How so? Simple math dictates the problem.

    If Edgar is 60 and has a heart attack that should have killed him, but lives for an additional 3 years, what logically can we deduce:

    If X ( edgar ) is to be replaced by Y annually then X prolonged = [ X = Y ] therefore [ Y (inc) - X = Z(cor.v.) ]

    Simple put.

    5 = 5. Now Edgar lives 5 more years ( X ) and a baby is born to replace him during his "additional" years every year ( Y ). Y (incorrect Value) - ( X - 1 ) = Z.

    Broken down 5 ( the incorrect value ) - 4 = 1. What's that mean?

    The Incorrect value of replacements is literally 4 ( The X-1 Value) extra children for one person. Do that one million times and see what you get.

    { Yes, I know it could be written much neater; I'm lazy. D: }
     
  18. Shelby

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,159
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    in the internet
    Does it have lab?
     
  19. snoozan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    3,568
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't really care what they teach my kid in school about sex ed. In my opinion, that's my job to do as I see fit. High school is too late, and I plan on teaching him as the issue comes up which will be much earlier. Teaching sex is my responsibility.

    With that said, there are plenty of irresponsibe parents out there, and in my opinion it does us all good if their kids don't continue that cycle of irresponsibility by availing themselves of contraception.

    This is horseshit. In my case, my body probably shouldn't have gotten pregnant, but it had no idea that I would suffer a major mood episode that jeopardized my health and that of my child and that I would have to have an emergency delivery because I had preeclampsia.

    Sure, loosely put, evolution favors people having more kids for the survival of the species. But to say the female body "knows" when to get pregnant is hogwash.

    You have no idea any more than I do what God's will is.
     
  20. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female

    Abstinence education is and was a dumbass idea. If it worked we wouldn't have so many teen pregnancys. Especially the awful kind where the girl gives birth in the bathroom at the prom. :mad: Sex ed should start in about the 5th grade, focusing just on the anatomy and the bodily changes adolescents can expect. In 6th grade start with the sex ed, condoms, spermicidal gels and foams, birth control pills, etc.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted