I'd like to continue this debate started by [MENTION=70227]JoakimFlorence[/MENTION] as I feel there were points left unanswered. Posted by [MENTION=66562]Robert[/MENTION] (#2764) This is not what comprehensive sex education is about, it is a complete myth that comp. sex ed. teaches children how to have sex, it doesn't. A teacher is over the age of majority (ie legally an adult) and also a substitute guardian for the time that pupil is in school, the state has decided that while a minor the male or female cannot consent to sex even if he/she is the one doing the asking, they have decided that a minor does not have the ability to consent and as such the teacher would not only be breaking the law they would also be abusing their position of temporary guardian . .which in my own opinion should be treated as harshly as incest. If I was a teacher and this request was made of me then I would explain that the object of sex education was not for practicable use, but a safety buffer should the person decide they want to have sex . .this in no way changes the legal responsibility of the teacher concerning their pupil, or any other adult concerning a child.
Posted by [MENTION=66562]Robert[/MENTION] (#2764) This is a problem with culture not sex education, the slut shaming is a quite a recent thing and didn't take root until various modern religions became the majority. It took the stance that sex was somehow dirty and should only be for procreation, admittedly there was a practical reasoning as well, that by attempting to reduce sexual contact there would be a decrease in STD's and pregnancies . .however the shaming was never applied equally, it was by far women who were the ones blamed for this and not men. Historically sex played a huge part in ancient religions and society. The point being that we, as a society, need to step away from this ideology that sex is wrong unless it is with a single partner who you are married to (or in a long term relationship), sex is and always has been a natural thing for not only us humans but pretty much all animals, the sooner we get back to understanding sex is not a sin or dirty the quicker we can move forward in finding ways for people to enjoy sex without the risk of pregnancy. As far as children are concerned it was not that long ago that the age of consent basically didn't exist, and in some places doesn't really exist now, the presumption was that once a girl started her periods she was a woman and as such able to produce children, take the UK for example, the first age of consent laws were introduced in 1275 as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age, and no man could be convicted or even charged with raping his wife .. .even if she was only 12 years old. The focus of the courts at that time, and for many years after, was placed on the woman, ie how she acted, how she was dressed etc, any of these could and did mean a man would not be convicted of rape, in essence the courts decided that men could not control their "urges" when faced with a girl showing bare flesh, which is really quite demeaning to men and still persists in some countries today, some of that ideology still exists in modern society including the USA, where it is the female who carries the burden of the majority of blame for any sexual activity shown by the "stud" label attached to men who sleep around and the "slut" label attached to women who do the same.
Posted by [MENTION=66562]Robert[/MENTION] (#89 It is accepted in all states, look up wrongful pregnancy - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wrongful+Pregnancy The supreme court has not had a case to decide upon as far as pregnancy as an injury is concerned.
Anyone else have anything they want to carry on debating from the last thread of this topic, please do add them here.
Here is this 77 year old view. My parents took no action to teach me about sex. Yet by the first grade, I knew of intercourse. I don't know who told my cousins, but I learned of it from them. I have over 4 years of college level education but no degree. I never had a sex education course. I knew of condoms by the 7th grade. I had a girl ask me to have sex when her and I were both inside the class room. She came right out and asked me to F her. I blurted out, no. Then I wondered if I had misunderstood her. I asked her to repeat the request. She converted it to do you want to fight. Neither of us had any business having sex but for some reason she had asked for it. Later on I learned other boys told her yes. During high school, the task was not to have sex. The school did not bring sex up other than to have a lecture that was over marriage and how mixed religions can promote problems in a marriage. I asked the question on what if the female student asks since this has become far more common. I realize she can't legally consent but few students know the law. And a lot of men nod yes when the nubile girl is hot as all get out. Even the news is littered with women teachers having their way with one or more of her male students. When they get caught, it makes the news. My hunch is the majority of them don't get caught.
I do not recall talking about wrongful pregnancy. I thought it was over calling pregnancy an injury. I commented I had never heard of such a law, but perhaps it is true in two states. I just don't know.
I don't believe that sex for the married has ever been believed to be dirty. I am not as certain as you appear to be that religion was very easy for the settlers to engage in. In villages or towns of course church buildings over time would be constructed. But a lot of the citizens lived way out in the "boonies." Matter of fact, for them, a young man contacting a female for sex was hard unless he was having sex with his sister. I knew a hot cheer leader girl in high school that to me seemed to be untouchable. I never saw her with any boy other than simply chatting. Post graduation, perhaps 2 years out of high school, I happened to meet her brother. This bozo openly admitted he and his sister helped each other lead an active sex life. Why he told me baffles me to this day. Girls who got pregnant and could not have an abortion, were indeed placed with family members or friends on the condition the pregnancy and later birth was kept secret. Why would a teen be shamed over having sex? Take a good look at teens these days and see if you think they are promiscuous. Look at the tattoos. See if they act chaste or perhaps ready for action. I know we are not to judge by manner of dress, but be honest. How can a girl show boys so much flesh and not do it on purpose? I can't recall many of the boys i knew as a teen worrying too much about looking hot. Those whose parents had money sent their sons to school wearing good looking fashion. But girls are often wanting to look as hot as possible to attract boys. As I see this, and trying to be totally fair, in nature the bee seeks the pretty flower for the production of honey. Boys see a girl, dressed to attract boys as an attraction. I see a lot of the girls as the leader of seduction.
More personal silliness not worth addressing but I did love the part about if you look at teen's tattoos you know they're bonking like rabbits I NEVER knew that! Wow! Glad I don't have any tattoos that would give away my sex life. Unlike some I don't like to parade it in public forums...guess those people who do that don't have any modesty...
I really am trying to make a very good point. That you don't get it really does not concern me all that much. When some of these girls wear bathing suits, they expose what they call a tramp stamp. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tramp Stamp
So you feel they can be raped depending on what they wear......sick. Did you feel the same way when about 1900 skirts went ABOVE THE ANKLE! Oh, those hussies who showed their ANKLES!!! ""They were just a askin' fer it...""
Why don't you stop trying to tell me what I believe? I resent you pulling such a cheap stunt. None of what you claim is true nor relevant.
I think people have trouble understanding your point because you talk about what you have seen in your life but do not explain exactly how that relates to your position on the subject (Same thing happens to me sometimes as well). For example, you talk about the lack of sex education in your life (basically you learned about sex from your cousins) but when I read that, I think you (and our generation) would have had a better chance at dealing with sexual issues if we had been given comprehensive sex education as we reached the age that could get us into trouble. Yet you seem to be aligned against comprehensive sex education, so it is confusing for the reader.
Yes, thank you. I had an unresolved post near the end of the original thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=450942 I had observed that some people claim a woman does NOT have a RIGHT to an abortion. As JoakimFlorence put it in http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=450942&p=1066043384#post1066043384 (post #1): In summary, there is NO right to have an abortion! It's just a made up concept to justify abortion and the pro-choice position. During the discussion it became clear that some people (those of you who resist admitting that women have this right) are operating on a flawed premise that there is a sentient person (or spirit, or soul) inhabiting the zygote/embryo/fetus from the moment of conception. I would like to know what evidence you have to support that premise?
Hey, that's the impression I get from all your little "stories of my life"... you put it out there and then think no one should comment?? Too bad!
If you persist in telling the forum what I believe, by all means just be honest. I resent your making things up.
I was honest about my impression of what you believe. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, you are in the wrong place. If you don't want people commenting on your posts you are in the wrong place.
I don't know any teens who have tattoos. Here, most tattoo parlours won't give them to anyone under 18.
I told you my beef with you. not people, just a couple of hard core Democrat supporting posters. I never mind disagreement with me nor with you. I enjoy honest comments. But when you tear me down, you are not honest. Notice I don't waste your time having you read posts where I simply tear you down. Show some courtesy. JeffLV is a good person. He has so seldom agreed with me I can't think of what it was. But the man is polite. And a homosexual. He and I get along fine. We do not agree. But he has class.
I am not at all objecting to accurate education even on sex topics. But is it necessary to have teachers at the school taking care of that part of human education?
Are you going on record as claiming that students leave the course at years end with the full comprehension taught by teachers? How dare you if you make such an argument. What good does a d or even a c grade do for students over an education about sex? I can teach sex in several sentences. Does not require a teacher either.
Based on the number of teen pregnancies in our generation, it seems clear that parents since 50 years ago were doing a less than stellar job of sex education. Their peers are certainly going to educate them about the options. Why would you object to professional teachers providing complete factual information about the options and the risks?
One of my major problems with teachers is how poorly the job gets done. Based on grades from schools, the angst of the parents, the way Democrats control schools, I see many problems for children who really did not show up at school to be not only told the risks, but as you well know, kids in generally do not think in terms of risk (no to drugs, do not smoke messages, etc) but see the opposite, the apparent approval by adult teachers for children to have sex, ergo the reason for the class, gives me pause to not believe in those teachers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...38/Teachers-too-embarrassed-to-teach-sex.html
Are you going on record as claiming that ALL students leave the ALL courses at year's end with full comprehension taught by teachers? Of course they don't...so you believe that kids shouldn't be taught at all because some won't have full comprehension of every course...that's just nuts.!!! AND that IS what you are saying.... You: ""I can teach sex in several sentences. Does not require a teacher either"""" And more of your illogical thoughts, you can teach but it does not need a teacher... Maybe your way of teaching is to post vulgar photos like you do here from your personal porn site??
