Yet I show the explicit language that is not suitable for minors such as this. I will only post a small part but it is on the OP link. It is to explicit in my view for the forum.
A 13-year-old boy has a violent sexual encounter with an older man, which causes the boy to become desperate for sex, and he ends up spending the rest of the year promiscuously getting “my **** sucked and my ass ****ed” by “a seemingly endless supply of dicks” belonging to older men, concluding with “I really did enjoy those sexual encounters.”)
So what is your beef, exactly? That the information is out there? That it might possibly be/might possibly not be in the classroom? That kids are being turned into homos because the schools are being reconfigured as gay processing centers for the coming of some new era of gay sex for all?
What, exactly, is your problem?
so is this supposed to be factual? I doubt it....
That this explicit material be allowed in school and passed as truth and normal.
That this explicit material be allowed in school and passed as truth and normal.
Then why is it made available to teachers by the GLSEN?
is it? teachers don't decide what is taught, the admininstration does that, and admin answers to the school board and school board answer to the parents...
at what age is it acceptable to allow children to learn that there is more than one kind of sex?
The left likes the huffington but yet you refuse to prove this wrong. maybe you just have no proof.
I hear that things like that turn kids gay.
Heh. A couple of years ago my health class had to watch a video from the 80's called "What if I'm Gay?"
Easily the most hilarious thing in health class ever.
OH LAWD! I am now scouring the web and isohunt for a copy of this...
Title might have been "Am I Gay?"
Not quite sure (on what the title was, I mean. I AM quite sure of the answer to the question in it.)
What exactly is not true or "normal"? Why are we trying to only portray "normal"?
So when's it been allowed in the classroom?
is it? teachers don't decide what is taught, the admininstration does that, and admin answers to the school board and school board answer to the parents...
at what age is it acceptable to allow children to learn that there is more than one kind of sex?
Judging by the fact that MOST parents wont see eye to eye on this, Sex education prior to...say...Middle or High School I guess, should (keyword here is SHOULD) probably come from Home. Can we trust parents to be responsible and teach their children? can we trust them not to lie to their children? Nope.
It's going to suck either way. Now as a society, I think we need to instill the RIGHT ideas about sex universally so no one is left out or left behind in knowledge of sex. That is: How babies are made, "If even one drop of your semen flies across a room onto an unprotected vagina you could get her preggers", etc. Kind of scare them, but let them know that sexuality is not bad, it's just a dangerous thing to play with. As far as age, probably start circa pubescent ages.
Why isn't this in conspiracy theory threads? This is just stupid and I can't believe anyone would accept this as fact. The OP is full of ****.
I've noticed a lot of people say this: "This should be in the conspiracy theory forum" when they don't agree with a post. :lol:
Um, the guy got the **** information off of some wack job news forum that is far right of Fox and then it sites some lame online news source? Come on Epic. You at least have to see how lame that is.
I would have the same issue with someone citing a Dailykos articles which site some online unknown news source that has some lame so called attachment to some "independent researchers" whom the person doesn't reveal. It's called knowing how to do research and know when someone has bought **** news and posted it and when someone has done their homework. The OP obviously has done no such homework.
Um, the guy got the **** information off of some wack job news forum that is far right of Fox and then it sites some lame online news source? Come on Epic. You at least have to see how lame that is.
I would have the same issue with someone citing a Dailykos articles which site some online unknown news source that has some lame so called attachment to some "independent researchers" whom the person doesn't reveal. It's called knowing how to do research and know when someone has bought **** news and posted it and when someone has done their homework. The OP obviously has done no such homework.
Who is the GLSEN?
Well, my point is that phrase seems to be a go to answer for certain topics when instead one should say: This belongs on the News 2.0 Board (or whichever one allows bias)
Like most of Zeebra's "News" posts :lol:
I have no problem when someone like ptif (who I now remember from over at hardcorepolitics.com before it shut down) uses tabloids as sources. It just makes it easier to shred the argument.
HP shut down? When?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?