 |
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
This thread seems weird to me.
I've had sex-ed, but it certainly wasn't from the same mold you guys hare having, clearly. We had sex ed in 8th grade the first real time. I mean we had sex ed KIND OF in elementary school with human biology, but real sex ed in 8th grade. The school nurse held it and we had condoms, how to apply them on a .. rod, in this case students fingers  . And then talk about what sex is. We played a sex board game, that had questions and then we were supposed to try to guess the right answer. But they weren't porn questions, more like what does this word mean.. what does nymphomaniac mean, I remember because I had to answer that one and I knew it!  all kinds of stuff. But it was nothing extravagant. It seems to me, you're approaching this from the danger aspect. Sex is not supposed to be scary and dark with diseases and possible death, unwanted pregnancies. It's supposed to be love making between two people who love each other. That's it. Why would you make that something ugly and dangerous because it's not.
You knwo damn well, that preaching only about the dangers of sex and promoting mainly abstinence is not working. Look at your record teen preggoes. Results do not speak for success. Look at what your kids believe in according to this article. It reminds me of results where kids in Africa think AIDS can be cured by drinking miracle juice.
NOT KNOWING is more dangerous. Later on in high school we had new sex ed. Now that was more realistic even. Watched a documentary about condoms. Yeah, really interesting.. not. And then we had a lot of talk about sex diseases and how they REALLY transmit. What are the symptoms, what are the results of the disease, what it can do to you. Then we took a test on it. YOu had to pass it. Questions like the dangers of smoking and hard drugs, dangers of unprotected sex. UNPROTECTED, not sex all together. While sex with condom doesn't give you 100% protection from STDs, no reason to be scaring kids. They are interested, young lads with girls in their minds, the sex part outweighs the risk part bar none anyway.
It's good to talk about the other parts too, and the abstinence, because it is an option. It's not like you have to have sex, so you should talk about the peer pressure too. It's not necessary to have sex to go out with someone or to be a real man or a real woman.
Some of us forget that kids at that age, we see them as children still, but they are growing and they're smarter than that. And horny. So we should be truthful to them.
You don't want to scare the kids about sex. That's exactly how you get people with sexual problems later on. Why on earth some people think, that they should impose their opressed views on kids and make them less complete later on in their lives? Just like parents, don't lie to your kids about sex. It's a wonderful thing, but it's between two adults. No wonder all the akwardness about nudity, even on this board.
And it's not working. Look at the teen preggo results in the US. It's clearly the wrong direction. And if you're scared your kid will have sex with someone too soon, well maybe you should talk to them once in a while so you would know and they would be able to talk about it to you, then you know if your kid is in that zone yet or not, and delay it or OK it. That's called healthy relationship. Unless of course there is no trust like that, then you worry about it and prolly kid is screwing crack hoes the first chance they get.
COME ON! The results speak for some kind of 3rd world country results, you can do better than that!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:18
|
|
che, sorry.. you know we had, in our .. confirmation camp (man that sounds military!), where our lutherans kid goes to at the age of 14, they spend little over week in some where, like a summer camp right? So we are there and priest and priest's helpers, talk about God and stuff. But it's mostly fun, everyone usually likes the camp, get to meet new people, and it's not tha tserious of an event so it's mostly just like camping but with religious edge to it. So, we talked about sex in there too.. it's normal. You know, a priest tellign you it's OK to masturbate if someone thought otherwise and that it's actually quite fun and he used to do it as a young lad all the time and God doesn't mind. And no, it wasn't harrasment, even though some of yous might think tha tright from the bat.
So, what I'm telling you is, our religious front is damn liberal compared to your religious front. makes me think, why is this? Sex is something fun and beautiful, I don't see why it needs to be slammed down like that. Who dares to say sex is scary and dangerous, if I was God, I would say screw you, I gave it as the greatest gift to you and here you go oppressing the young people like that.
It's like opposing the manufacturing of cars because many people drive and crash their cars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Well, you can teach that too. That if you masturbate too often, and you keep a brake in between, it feels better because excessive masturbating makes you more desensitized. But it doesn't desensitize you forever. But chronic masturbating naturally makes it less of a deal and not so pleasurable as it could be, because you're doing it too often. I don't see why that can't be taught as well. If you can't talk about sex in school or with parents, then who are you going to talk about it with and learn? History channel? Porn movies? No no.. you need someone who talks the truth and doesn't make it a grim reaper thing. |
That's it. I'm bidding Finland for my next post. 
You may or may not remember, Pekka, that when Clinton's first Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, proposed teaeching kids about masturbation in a neutral, medically-sound fashion just as you propose, she was actually hounded from office by the GOP (and was not defended by Clinton, the Gutless Wonder).
Really, stay in Europe. Hot American women visit there all the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypse
There are perks to not masturbating early or too often...if you do it too much it desensitizes and it'll be harder to get off with normal sex and blowjobs. |
Hey, this is waaaaay off topic, but I notice that you go to college in Lexingtion, VA. Do you go to VMI or Washington & Lee. Just curious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:18
|
|
quote:
Yep, and those are pretty big ones.
I'd add the potential for emotional harm/exploitation - especially if we're talking about sex between, say, an older man and a high school girl (although that's not to say there can't be exploitation & harm done if the situation was reversed, but that's the most common version).
Safe sex, while clearly superior than unsafe sex, is not foolproof. There remains danger, and that's something kids should know (in addition to how to use a condom). |
quote:
Sex is not the problem but sex can be part of the problem. Yes, divorce and the collapse of the family structure are partly respsonsible for the social decay. But in many cases, sex (ie, adultery, promiscuity) played a role in causing the divorce or the collapse of the family. So, irresponsible sexual behavior can contribute to some of the social problems we face today. The whole point of abstinence programs is to try to teach young people to be more sexually responsible. "Safe sex" classes don't do that. Teaching young people that it is ok to have sex whenever they want and with whomever they want, as long as they wear a condom does not inculcate responsible behavior. |
I'm no fan of abstinence-only programs, but what you say is true...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Latex condoms are very effective. If someone's using a lamb skin condom then my guess is they had one of these miseducation, abstinence only sex ed courses. |
Large scale surveys show that groups that use condoms "all the time" still have a pregnancy rate about one-third to one-half that of groups using no birth control. I believe that if you read the fine print of those studies claiming an astounding better than 90% efficacy rate you'll find that the authors meticulously tossed out all cases of preganacy in their test group that they determined to have suffered "slippage", "breakage", and "poor technique". Specifically the authors will focus just on the portion of the test group that got pregnant and grill them until they can find a reason to toss most of them out. This is bad study design, in fact it's unethical.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is it? All I hear from the nay side is that this obviously cannot be true. |
quote:
TORONTO - A study from the University of Toronto reveals that 99% of all fundementalist pro-life Canadians are closeted homosexuals! |
Is it? Prove they ain't. I don't want to hear you say "it OBVIOUSLY can't be true."
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2004 21:01
Smiley 
So many missed orgasms.
|