Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Fledgist, do you think that pornography should be sold to children ? [/qb]

It is: The Bible is freely available.

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Fledgist, do you think that pornography should be sold to children ? [/qb]

It is: The Bible is freely available. [/qb]

`

Two for two.

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Fledgist, do you think that pornography should be sold to children ? [/qb]

It is: The Bible is freely available. [/qb]

`

Two for two. [/qb]

Perhaps you might anwer some of the questions I've asked you. If you're capable of an honest answer, that is.

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

"If you're capable of an honest answer, that is.

You mean an answer as honest as "The Bible is freely available" ?

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] "If you're capable of an honest answer, that is.

You mean an answer as honest as "The Bible is freely available" ? [/qb]

I see you don't understand the concept. It must be as alien to your belief system as honour.

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Enough.

Do you support legislation that makes it illegal to sell pornography to children ?

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] "Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words which reflects what I perceive as organized religion's "preoccupation" with sexual matters to the exclusion of everything else."

"To the exclusion of everything else" ? How so ?
[/qb]

See my comment on page two of this thread about personal misdemeanor vs. gifts to humanity.

[coffeegyal]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

If sex education is taught as part of a health class or biology class, it seems like it would be perfectly reasonable for the teacher to list methods of protection from STDs--the only 100% effective method being abstinence. That's fine.

But, one can teach that without roaming into the imposition of a given teacher's morality. Like some others here have stated, I don't want a teacher telling my child that sex before marriage is wrong. What I'd like to tell the child (and what my folks told me) is that sex is very closely tied with emotion, and that it's important to think about (a) who one is as a person; (b) the depth of what one would be sharing with this other person; (c)what one expects from sex or from a relationship once it involves sex; and (d) how one will feel if things don't work out the way one hopes.

In general, we don't encourage kids to know themselves. Just telling a kid something is right or wrong isn't the answer. They have to understand what their parents believe, what their cultural roots are, and what their hearts tell them. Armed with self-knowledge AND technical knowledge, kids can make better decisions. I know it's scary, and I know that those of you who would tell them flat out that sex before marriage is wrong do have the best interests of the kids and society in mind. But, kids don't mature if they aren't trusted to make decisions (once armed with information).

And, I have to agree with 40: If you've loved, the relationship hasn't been a failure. It's okay to feel emotional pain when something ends, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile.

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by coffeegyal:

But, one can teach that without roaming into the imposition of a given teacher's morality. Like some others here have stated, I don't want a teacher telling my child that sex before marriage is wrong. What I'd like to tell the child (and what my folks told me) is that sex is very closely tied with emotion, and that it's important to think about (a) who one is as a person; (b) the depth of what one would be sharing with this other person; (c)what one expects from sex or from a relationship once it involves sex; and (d) how one will feel if things don't work out the way one hopes.

Good points. One of the reason why this is such a difficult subject is because of the varying beliefs and the fact that most of us tend to approach it from a subjective point of view. My beliefs says sex before marriage is wrong, and I would not want someone telling my child otherwise. On the other hand, another parent may consider marriage to be totally irrelevant and would therefore not want their child to be told otherwise either.

Of course once the child is of age, s/he can make their own choices, but it is this quagmire of subjectivity that contributes to the problem of who does the teaching, and what is taught.

And, I have to agree with 40: If you've loved, the relationship hasn't been a failure. It's okay to feel emotional pain when something ends, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile.

Agreed also. That applies whether one is married or not.

[britisha]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:
People, most people, say that sex before marriage is "wrong," and yet I wonder how many children reach puberty in many unamamed cultures without having had sex... and it was OLDER kids and adults, who initiate this sex.

Very true about the molestation of children by older children and even adults. This is substantiating the point that some of us are making...the mere fact that children would be molested by these "perverts" simply means that the molesters have a sick concept of sexual intercourse among humans. Mark you, there are cultures that we tend to criticise wherein "children" are given into marriage by their parents...norms that we in the West frown upon based on our cultural concept of "sex." Note that I said "given into marriage."

Although many in the West share your POV concerning sex, some like you would even question how can a child/young teen [based on definition of a child] engage in the sex act; still they would condemn other cultures for allowing children to marry.

The Christian message, it seems to me, is usually based on the notion that kids are sex machines on the verge of running amuk, and if nice moral people TALK to them, then they may not lose control.

Quite the contrary. It is not only "Christians" who are morally upright, it is not only "Christians" who see the dangers in promiscuity. What would you prefer Fortylegs? A young teen who is armed with knowledge or one who goes out and "experiment" with his/her body, only to suffer the potential adverse consequences of such behaviour?

This isn't what really happens... it's usually family members or friends that entice much younger kids into sexual activity.

You said that before, see above.

Originally posted by britisha:

Man was created a little lower than the angels. The body is his/her temple, something that should be treated respectfully. IMHO we would be no better than dogs and animals in the wild who go from animal to animal when "in heat." Showing no physical restraint but to satisfy the urge.

Fortylegs: Sooo, we should teach that to children? It will help them somehow?

britisha: What do you think in all honesty; would it hurt or could it help?

Originally posted by britisha:

What does that make us? It is this going from partner to partner that is the problem,

Fortylegs: But.... haven't people always done this, and especially the young?

britisha: I don't know about "always" I most certainly know that there are many who don't do this out of sheer self-respect, and some based on religious convictions. so what is your point? The point that "people alwasys" do this, doesn't NECESSARILY make it right. There are people who always get drunk, always NEVER work, always lie, always steal, always behave as social deviants; does this make it "right" because many behave like this?

Originally posted by britisha:

marriage is viewed {again if we agree on the definition] as the bond between two people among other things to reserve onesself for his/her partner.

Fortylegs: Thing is, marriage has until very recently meant that now the woman was the man's property. Being faithful is more of a cultural phenomena, and off the top of my head, I really can't think of a country where being faithful in marriage happens.

britisha: That is why I earlier mentioned that we have to agree on the definition of the institution of marriage and what it entails. Obviously it means different things to you and to me. While "being faithful" might be perceived as a cultural phenomena, and I am not disputing this in some cultures, we have now seen the adverse consequences of NOT being faithful, including not only the risk of STD's, but the commiting of murder on the part of the jealous spouse in far too many cases. [both in and out of wedlock] So there's a deterrent for you...leaving religion out of the scenario. Therefore not being faithful can be detrimental. You don't negate this, do you?

Originally posted by britisha:

How many of these "test" runs have proven to be a failure; the running from partner to partner that is?

Fortylegs: Failure??? It's not a "failure" to love someone is it? Even if the relationship doesnt go on a life time.

britisha: Come on now Fortylegs, we seem to have a difference here also with the meaning of the word "love." I know that some people say "I want to make love," meaning I want to have sex, but "sex" and "love" are not synonymous by any standard. A test run can mean anything from a "one night stand" to "testing" the prowess of a sexual partner without any feeling of emotional involvement. These is the test run that I am talking about; and in most cases than not, someone is left feeling "used".

Originally posted by britisha:

One factor that makes us different from lower animals is the fact that we [humans] have the ability to POSTPONE gratification...when this ability is warped the indiv, can and usually ends up with addiction and other similar problems... Now this is not open to discussion about if the marriage partner isn't "good in bed." this is another topic for discussion as well.

Fortylegs: "Warped?"

britisha: Yes, warped or defective.

_

[britisha]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

read these "r"

[accepted77]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

I have been wary about posting in this thread because I am unsure that the purpose of sex ed is for any other purpose than preventative, whether it be to prevent STD or prevent unwanted pregnancies or to prevent ignorance pure and simple of basic hygine.

But as Servant have pointed out sex is much more than the mechanics of how the body works it involves value judgements that are the bedrock on the way a society lives and grows the cultural fabric of a societies basic unit - the family.

Sex education cannot be taught with a valueless mode, we are social beings and sexuality in all societies have taboos and controlls which make up a value system. Sex is a value issue it is how we value the most intimate part of ourself.

The real question we are striving to answer here is who's values.

This is the basic debate we struggle with in all these debates. Who's values is the more relevant?

For in all human societies there is some sort of a value system.

Those who base their views on a christian value system, will always see morals, those who don't also see morals but their's is whatever is right in their own eyes.
This is a value system as well but they are wont to deny it as such.

The real question is which one leads to a better society. I side with those on the christian morals side. Check history, its impossible to build an effective system on everything goes.

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Well, I'm "on the road" now in the U.S., and I don't have time to write a decent reply to the posts. I will get back to this thread in a week or so...

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Double post

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] Enough.
[/qb]

No. I don't want people like you trying to tell me how to raise my children, or trying to force your tawdry 'morality' and racist religion on my children. People like you deserve prison.

As for 'pornography', be so kind as to define it. I'll wait.