Barack Caligula Obama

fossten said:
What's the earliest age sex ed is taught? I wasn't aware that school started at age 13.

You're trying to mitigate the horror of this pervert in charge of 'safe schools' by presenting a straw man.
Click to expand...

I think the earliest is 10. Grade 6
People reach puberty sooner and sexy images are everywhere in advertizing and other media.
A couple of years before puberty I think is pretty standard for sex ed.

I'll agree with you this guy is innapropriate and rubs parents sensibilities the wrong way but the games and acts he promotes are not in and of themselves anything evil.
Young adults have enough to deal with so save the kinky stuff for later.
I just picked up on your thread with the interesting Brit story to liven this up.

I'm reminded of a line from the 60's band Frankie Goes to Hollywood

"We're living in a world where sex and horror are the new gods"

Or Gun's and Roses
"Welcome to the Jungle it gets worse here everyday"

There was also a book called Raising G rated children in an X rated World.
 
04SCTLS said:
I think beyond the biology sex ed should cover the basics of prevention of unwanted pregnancies and STD's which is in the public interest.
Click to expand...

How about, instead of wishful thinking, you look at the empirical results of sex ed. We were better off without it.
 
04SCTLS said:
I think the earliest is 10. Grade 6
People reach puberty sooner and sexy images are everywhere in advertizing and other media.
A couple of years before puberty I think is pretty standard for sex ed.

I'll agree with you this guy is innapropriate and rubs parents sensibilities the wrong way but the games and acts he promotes are not in and of themselves anything evil.
Click to expand...
It is evil to teach young children perverse sex acts.

Young adults have enough to deal with so save the kinky stuff for later.
I just picked up on your thread with the interesting Brit story to liven this up.
Click to expand...
It's called 'trolling.'

I'm reminded of a line from the 60's band Frankie Goes to Hollywood

"We're living in a world where sex and horror are the new gods"

Or Gun's and Roses
"Welcome to the Jungle it gets worse here everyday"

There was also a book called Raising G rated children in an X rated World.
Click to expand...
You liberals really have a problem with right and wrong, don't you?
 
fossten said:
It is evil to teach young children perverse sex acts.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but we're talking about young teenagers not pre pubescent 5 year old children.
You're misreading and embellishing your own post.


GLSEN offered sex education seminars to young teenagers within the framework of public education that went way, way beyond explanations of human biology and disease transmission.
Click to expand...

You liberals really have a problem with right and wrong, don't you?
Click to expand...

The world is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
You just don't want to accept the fact that some teenagers you consider children are sexually active with their peers.
15% have admitted to sexting pictures of their coochies to each other and consider it no big deal.
40% of 12 year olds have cell phones given to them by their parents.
We can strive for idealism but we have to accept and deal with the reality.


It's called 'trolling.'
Click to expand...

This thread was dead until I picked it up.
Why did you post it if you didn't want some provacative discussion.
 
04SCTLS said:
I agree with this but we're talking about young teenagers not pre pubescent 5 year old children.
You're misreading and embellishing your own post.
Click to expand...

You just admitted that 10 year olds get sex ed. Read your own posts. Or are they not considered children?
The world is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
You just don't want to accept the fact that some teenagers you consider children are sexually active with their peers.
Click to expand...
Define 'teenager.' You seem to think it includes 10 year olds. And no, you're wrong. I can accept the fact. I don't need to accept some perv like Jennings being allowed to teach his twisted beliefs to children in school in a compulsory fashion.
15% have admitted to sexting pictures of their coochies to each other and consider it no big deal.
40% of 12 year olds have cell phones given to them by their parents.
We can strive for idealism but we have to accept and deal with the reality.
Click to expand...
'Accept and deal' does not equal 'teach and demonstrate.'

This thread was dead until I picked it up.
Why did you post it if you didn't want some provacative discussion.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't mind. I'm just pointing out what you were doing. You're still clinging to the irrational comparison of college frat houses and elementary schools.
 
fossten said:
You just admitted that 10 year olds get sex ed. Read your own posts. Or are they not considered children?
Define 'teenager.' You seem to think it includes 10 year olds. And no, you're wrong. I can accept the fact. I don't need to accept some perv like Jennings being allowed to teach his twisted beliefs to children in school in a compulsory fashion.'Accept and deal' does not equal 'teach and demonstrate.'

Oh, I don't mind. I'm just pointing out what you were doing. You're still clinging to the irrational comparison of college frat houses and elementary schools.
Click to expand...

General sex ed that 10 year olds get does not include discussions of fetish acts.
Teenagers are 13 teen to 19 teen year olds and that's the group the article is talking about.
You're lumping in this guy as a straw man while ostensibly talking about general sex ed for children on the verge of puberty.
 
04SCTLS said:
General sex ed that 10 year olds get does not include discussions of fetish acts.
Teenagers are 13 teen to 19 teen year olds and that's the group the article is talking about.
You're lumping in this guy as a straw man while ostensibly talking about general sex ed for children on the verge of puberty.
Click to expand...
A little slow, aren't you? What's to stop the new SAFE SCHOOLS CZAR from putting this in sex ed classes?
 
04SCTLS, let me summarize the history and empirical evidence surrounding sex education for you.

Despite the fact that teenage pregnancies, illegitimacy rates, STD's, etc. had been on the decline for years (decades in most cases), the left manufactured a "crisis" in the mid 1960's as justification for their "solution" of the federal government promoting, mandating and expanding sex education in schools. Advocates promoted sex education as necessary to avoid, "the spiraling rate of venereal diseases, the pregnancies before marriage, the emotionally disastrous results of irresponsible sexual behavior." However, after their "solution" was enacted and expanded, teenage birth rates rose; despite the skyrocketing abortion rates. Not surprisingly, illegitimacy in general, and various rates of STD's also rose.

The fact is that, the only benefit served by sex education is in increasing the influence of elites over children; in promoting a collectivist agenda. An article in a publication called the Journal of School Health characterized sex ed as, "an exciting opportunity to develop new norms." There is also this passage from an article in the Chicago Sun Times in 1992:
A popular sex instructional program for junior high school students, aged 13 and 14, shows film strips of four naked couples, two homo-sexual and two heterosexual, performing a variety of sexually explicit acts, and teachers are warned with a cautionary note from the sex educators not to show the material to parents or friends: "Many of the materials of this program shown to people outside the context of the program itself can evoke misunderstanding and difficulties.​
To think that the left doesn't look at schools as a means to promote their agenda and indoctrinate is to ignore reality. We have kids singing praises to Obama, being made to watch AlGore's propaganda movie, being told that the Bible is not appropriate reading material for "quiet time", kids being sent home for drawing Jesus on a crucifix...the list of these type of things is endless.

As to the pattern of (typically) manufacturing a "crisis" and offering a "solution" that ends up making things worse yet conveniently promotes a collectivist agenda in some way, that is also typical of leftist politics. Weather it be sex education, the war on poverty, Medicare, Porkulus or Obamacare, again, the list is endless.
 
fossten said:
A little slow, aren't you? What's to stop the new SAFE SCHOOLS CZAR from putting this in sex ed classes?
Click to expand...

Nothing? But why not wait and see what happens then if your right you have every right to brag and do your fun liberal responses.
 
Joeys Lincoln said:
Nothing? But why not wait and see what happens then if your right you have every right to brag and do your fun liberal responses.
Click to expand...

That was a ridiculous response.

First, why would you knowingly sit idly when you see something being done that you recognize as being harmful to children, or erode the rights and responsibility of responsible parents, just to say, "I told you so."

Second, the fundamental nature of government means that once a program is employed, it's extremely difficult, often impossible, to ever remove it.

But in this case, when it's part of a broader social agenda, how do you prove it wrong? There's evidence to support that already.
You start with basic sex ed, then you get more intimate social sexual teaching, and next thing you know, the state is giving kids a Fisting coloring book while in the 1st grade.
 
shagdrum said:
04SCTLS, let me summarize the history and empirical evidence surrounding sex education for you.

Despite the fact that teenage pregnancies, illegitimacy rates, STD's, etc. had been on the decline for years (decades in most cases), the left manufactured a "crisis" in the mid 1960's as justification for their "solution" of the federal government promoting, mandating and expanding sex education in schools. Advocates promoted sex education as necessary to avoid, "the spiraling rate of venereal diseases, the pregnancies before marriage, the emotionally disastrous results of irresponsible sexual behavior." However, after their "solution" was enacted and expanded, teenage birth rates rose; despite the skyrocketing abortion rates. Not surprisingly, illegitimacy in general, and various rates of STD's also rose.


The fact is that, the only benefit served by sex education is in increasing the influence of elites over children; in promoting a collectivist agenda. An article in a publication called the Journal of School Health characterized sex ed as, "an exciting opportunity to develop new norms." There is also this passage from an article in the Chicago Sun Times in 1992:
A popular sex instructional program for junior high school students, aged 13 and 14, shows film strips of four naked couples, two homo-sexual and two heterosexual, performing a variety of sexually explicit acts, and teachers are warned with a cautionary note from the sex educators not to show the material to parents or friends: "Many of the materials of this program shown to people outside the context of the program itself can evoke misunderstanding and difficulties.​
To think that the left doesn't look at schools as a means to promote their agenda and indoctrinate is to ignore reality. We have kids singing praises to Obama, being made to watch AlGore's propaganda movie, being told that the Bible is not appropriate reading material for "quiet time", kids being sent home for drawing Jesus on a crucifix...the list of these type of things is endless.

As to the pattern of (typically) manufacturing a "crisis" and offering a "solution" that ends up making things worse yet conveniently promotes a collectivist agenda in some way, that is also typical of leftist politics. Weather it be sex education, the war on poverty, Medicare, Porkulus or Obamacare, again, the list is endless.
Click to expand...

You imperical evidence seems isolated and anecdotal and not exactly overwhelming.
So you say sex ed is useless at best and generally harmful.
Any links to stuff that would support your contentions.
 
04SCTLS said:
Your empirical evidence seems isolated and anecdotal and not exactly overwhelming.
So you say sex ed is useless at best and generally harmful.
Any links to stuff that would support your contentions.
Click to expand...

In other word, you don't wanna hear that so you are moving the goal posts. Apparently you missed the word "summary". My info doesn't come from internet links. In fact, considering a lot of it concerns data from before the internet was widely used, it is not very likely to even be on the internet. It is simply what I can recall from a book I read recently that gave specific numbers...

A few of the sources were cited in this link, which makes the following point...
Dissenters can always dismiss this evidence as "right wing propaganda", but the fact is that sex education programs have not reduced teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases which is their purpose. Instead, they preempt parents' decisions as to when and how their children are introduced to sex.​
 
shagdrum said:
In other word, you don't wanna hear that so you are moving the goal posts. Apparently you missed the word "summary". My info doesn't come from internet links. In fact, considering a lot of it concerns data from before the internet was widely used, it is not very likely to even be on the internet. It is simply what I can recall from a book I read recently that gave specific numbers...


A few of the sources were cited in this link, which makes the following point...
Dissenters can always dismiss this evidence as "right wing propaganda", but the fact is that sex education programs have not reduced teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases which is their purpose. Instead, they preempt parents' decisions as to when and how their children are introduced to sex.​
Click to expand...
Your article link is full of perhaps and maybes, hardly conclusive.
I don't know what goalposts you're talking about that I moved.

You inserted your general opinion about sex ed in this post as fact and I was just asking for some backup to support your position as you would do.
 
04SCTLS said:
Your article link is full of perhaps and maybes, hardly conclusive.
I don't know what goalposts you're talking about that I moved.

You inserted your general opinion about sex ed in this post as fact and I was just asking for some backup to support your position as you would do.
Click to expand...

FYI: the article provides plenty of facts (and the sources for those facts) to back up its claims. However, you clearly are not interested in the truth and so you are misrepresenting the article to justify dismissing it...

The fact is that sex ed has NOT resulting in less teen pregnancy, less STD's, less illegitimacy, etc. After sex ed was instituted, all those things have gone up. Either sex ed had no effect on the factors it was "aimed" and changing for the better, or it actually made the situation worse. Either way, it is a waste of money whose only substantive benefit is that it is a tool to create "new norms". The facts demonstrate that.

FACT: fertility rates among teenage girls were declining for over a decade before sex ed programs
FACT: The rates of gonorrhea, syphilis, etc had been declining for over a decade before sex ed programs
FACT: the pregnancy rate among teens aged 15-19 rose from 68 per 1000 (1970) to 96 per 1000 (1980)
FACT: The rate of gonorrhea tripled between 1956 and 1975
FACT: birth rates among unmarried teens aged 15-17 rose by 29% between 1970 and 1984; despite the more then doubling of the abortion rate in that time
FACT: Sargent Shriver, former head of the Office of Economic Opportunity (who enacted and promoted sex ed programs, initially) testified before a congressional committee in 1978, "Just as venereal disease has skyrocketed 350% in the last 15 years when we have had more clinics, more pills, and more sex education then ever in history, teen-age pregnancy has risen."

The facts speak for themselves. It is CONCLUSIVE that sex ed did not reduce rates of STD, teenage pregnancy, illegitimacy, etc. If it had any effect, it was to increase those factors. So, what benefit does sex education provide?
 
So, what benefit does sex education provide?
Click to expand...

People get what they want and it spurs discussion.

According to SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, 93% of adults they surveyed support sexuality education in high school and 84% support it in junior high school.In fact, 88% of parents of junior high school students and 80% of parents of high school students believe that sex education in school makes it easier for them to talk to their adolescents about sex.Also, 92% of adolescents report that they want both to talk to their parents about sex and to have comprehensive in-school sex education.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1622610

The debate over whether to have sex education in American schools is over. A new poll by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government finds that only 7 percent of Americans say sex education should not be taught in schools. Moreover, in most places there is even little debate about what kind of sex education should be taught, although there are still pockets of controversy. Parents are generally content with whatever sex education is offered by their children's school (see Parents Approve sidebar), and public school principals, in a parallel NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School survey, report little serious conflict over sex education in their communities nowadays

More at link
 
04SCTLS said:
You imperical evidence seems isolated and anecdotal and not exactly overwhelming.
So you say sex ed is useless at best and generally harmful.
Any links to stuff that would support your contentions.
Click to expand...
Pot, meet kettle.
 
04SCTLS said:
People get what they want and it spurs discussion.

According to SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, 93% of adults they surveyed support sexuality education in high school and 84% support it in junior high school.In fact, 88% of parents of junior high school students and 80% of parents of high school students believe that sex education in school makes it easier for them to talk to their adolescents about sex.Also, 92% of adolescents report that they want both to talk to their parents about sex and to have comprehensive in-school sex education.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1622610

The debate over whether to have sex education in American schools is over. A new poll by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government finds that only 7 percent of Americans say sex education should not be taught in schools. Moreover, in most places there is even little debate about what kind of sex education should be taught, although there are still pockets of controversy. Parents are generally content with whatever sex education is offered by their children's school (see Parents Approve sidebar), and public school principals, in a parallel NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School survey, report little serious conflict over sex education in their communities nowadays

More at link
Click to expand...
So the goal of sex ed is to get people talking about it? I thought it was to reduce teenage pregnancy and STDs.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you.
 
fossten said:
So the goal of sex ed is to get people talking about it? I thought it was to reduce teenage pregnancy and STDs.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you.
Click to expand...

I was answering shags rhetorical question of the benefits of sex education if it doesn't accomplish it's goals (according to his information)

What
So now you think greater discussion of these things between parents and adolescents is a worthless thing.
I thought you supported parents on this :rolleyes:
 
04SCTLS said:
I was answering shags rhetorical question of the benefits of sex education if it doesn't accomplish it's goals (according to his information)

What
So now you think greater discussion of these things between parents and adolescents is a worthless thing.
I thought you supported parents on this :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Don't throw your silly straw man arguments at me, you're wasting your time. You know very well what my position on this topic is. I've stated it very clearly. Your only goal at this point is to keep the thread going and pick and poke at people. Clearly you don't have enough to do or enough other subjects that interest you - you're making this thread about you.

Bye now.
 
04SCTLS said:
People get what they want and it spurs discussion.
Click to expand...

"Spurring discussion" is a specious "benefit" at best. Again, look at the facts. It seems there was probably more "discussion" going on at home before sex education in school, or that the "benefits" of discussion were overrated.

And the "people getting what they want" point is also specious because it rests on society's ignorance concerning the history and record of sex education as well as society's aversion to change. Most people liked Obamacare until they found out the facts. It isn't so much that people want sex education, as much as it is they see no reason to change it. A key fact, though, is that it was not the case that most of society wanted this when the policies were initiated. It was initiated (against objections forecasting dire consequences that later came true), then generations grew up with it and now most people, in their ignorance, don't see a reason to change. The question is, if most of society knew the facts, would they be opposed to changing it?

In fact, it can be argued that the same sentiment of society against radial change is behind both the sentiment against sex ed when the policy was first enacted as well as society's support of it now. It have become a part of the culture and society is adverse to chance. Basically, forcing sex education on society deceptively shifted the burden of proof; the advocates of sex ed never met it, instead deflecting it onto their opponents.

This has been discussed before in this forum; if you want to reduce illegitimacy, teenage pregnancy, STD's, etc. the various means that society had been doing that were a lot better then countermanding and commandeering those means in favor of an explicit government program aimed at taking on that role for itself. A government program inherently injects politics into the formation of the curriculum (and the curriculum itself), which leads to the curriculum avoiding making anything seem taboo in order to avoid offending any constituency. So, there are no real values or responsibility taught; simply mechanics and some "suggestions" of responsibility. The wisdom of the experience of countless generation embodied in tradition and in social institutions is rejected in favor or the articulate postulations of a few elites. History has shown countless times on which end of that dichotomy true wisdom resides...
 
This has been discussed before in this forum; if you want to reduce illegitimacy, teenage pregnancy, STD's, etc. the various means that society had been doing that were a lot better then countermanding and commandeering them in favor of an explicit government program aimed at doing teaching sex education.
Click to expand...

What various means other than abstinence which is only one mean are you speaking of.
Some parents will talk to their kids about sex but the majority won't without some prompting.
 
fossten said:
Don't throw your silly straw man arguments at me, you're wasting your time. You know very well what my position on this topic is. I've stated it very clearly. Your only goal at this point is to keep the thread going and pick and poke at people. Clearly you don't have enough to do or enough other subjects that interest you - you're making this thread about you.

Bye now.
Click to expand...

You're right.
You were poking at me so I was just poking back.
Perhaps I am just having too much mischevious fun and getting carried away here.
I'm married to a woman with a high sex drive and since we don't have any kids I'm just a rich 50 year old horn dog adolescent with great toys and time to enjoy them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 75 (members: 0, guests: 75)
Back
Top