sex education should be taught at 8

[steen]

10 sounds like a reasonable age. 8 is just too young in my book.

Interestingly enough. I have run into 10-year olds who have had sex.

 

[FallingPianos]

Interestingly enough. I have run into 10-year olds who have had sex.

without being under a lot of pressure to do so? how old was the person they had sex with?

 

[Donkey1499]

Interestingly enough. I have run into 10-year olds who have had sex.

For some odd reason I'm not the least bit surprised that they're doing it at the age of 10. With all the violence in movies and sex on tv. What ever happened to those good, ol' fashioned family values in which we use to rely?

 

[Lizai]

I know this will upset people but anyone who thinks a child hasnt noticed it has genitals by the time they start there normal age of sexual education is sadly mistaken.


and dont forget most sexual education isnt about actually having sex many girls start their periods from the age of 8 and are unaware what is happening to them. Fact is many parents are unable to talk to their children about sex and in the long term earlier education has been proven to lower the spread of sti's and unwanted pregnancy.

it basically comes down to if you think cosmo should teach your child or a qulified teacher.

People bang on about how the act of teaching a child sex education takes away their innocence yet teaching abstinence is good for them. Of course abstinence can work but it works by telling kids their going to burn in hell if they have sex before marriage (as if marriage is as old as the human race itself).And children who do have sex after being taught this will be completely without knowledge on the subject and feel very guilty.

Fact is with proper education doesent make children have sex earlier however it can insure that when they do they will more likely to choose who with and when they want children, knowledge of the dangers of sexual diseases , better at talking to their own children about sex and more than likely more sexually competent.

Yeah, seriously. My mom told me about the menstrual cycle when I was, like, 5. It didn't bother me in the least, and I'm still one of the most naive people I know. Anyway, if I had turned out to be one of those girls who get theirs early, I would have been well-prepared.

Also, it kind of pisses me off that it's not considered socially acceptable to talk about a perfectly natural cycle that happens to all women and enables us to GIVE BIRTH (which is generally considered to be a good thing), in public. How is it right that I have often in the past found it embarrassing to take a package of pads up to the cash register? Isn't menstruating enough of a bother?

Sex Ed should be taught by THE PARENTS, not the schools.

Why? The Parents aren't the ultimate source of knowledge in the world. Not every grain of wisdom they pass down to their children is going to be completely accurate. That kind of a system is more likely to cause and perpetuate potentially harmful rumors than simply having sex ed taught in schools by qualified educators.

 

[Donkey1499]

Why? The Parents aren't the ultimate source of knowledge in the world. Not every grain of wisdom they pass down to their children is going to be completely accurate. That kind of a system is more likely to cause and perpetuate potentially harmful rumors than simply having sex ed taught in schools by qualified educators.

And have teachers give their :spin: on how my child should or shouldn't have sex?

 

[Lizai]

And have teachers give their :spin: on how my child should or shouldn't have sex?

At least the children would be given some sort of clue. I don't think I've ever even spoken the word "sex" to either of my parents in this context. If it had been left up to them to teach me all this sex ed stuff, I'd never have learned it; heck, I learned what a blowjob was from my friends at the lunch table this fall! (Still can't believe people actually do that...)

 

[shuku]

Sooner or later they're going to discover the horros of internet porn. Sex ed in 4th grade could be an hour a week surfing stileproject. That would certainly teach them something.

 

[Lizai]

Sooner or later they're going to discover the horros of internet porn. Sex ed in 4th grade could be an hour a week surfing stileproject. That would certainly teach them something.

Oh, fantastic. I'm sure that would teach them exactly what we want them to learn. </sarcasm>

And anyway, that's not necessarily true. I've been smart enough not to run into internet porn at all so far, and I've been surfing the net since third grade (albeit with parental controls at first).

 

[shuku]

I'd hate to think of the reprecussions of kids looking at furry porn before getting sex ed when they watch a lot of disney.

Anyway, my idea is that if society (the taxpayers) thinks kids have to learn this stuff, then the government is obliged to make sure it happens. The government can't step into people's homes and force the parents to talk about responsible sex practices, and at the current rate teen pregnancy and STDs are considered a social problem. So the best way to ensure this problem is taken care of without overstepping the government's boundries is for the government to stay in their own domain (schools) and fufill societies' need for properly educated citizens. That is the need for proper sex education.

Snap, I should probably be talking about the topic at hand.
Ok, so when people think that it is a social problem that teenagers are having sex, they need to make sure that the education is given to them at a time considerably prior to when the problem may occur. If we could have some statistic on this age group's sexual activity (earliest ages and frequency) we could better address the need for the change in this program. It may be that an insignificant number of people are affected by this, so that a federal policy may be a waste of resources. At the very least, preteen sex won't result in unwanted pregnancies.

 

[jimmyjack]

I know this will upset people but anyone who thinks a child hasnt noticed it has genitals by the time they start there normal age of sexual education is sadly mistaken.


and dont forget most sexual education isnt about actually having sex many girls start their periods from the age of 8 and are unaware what is happening to them. Fact is many parents are unable to talk to their children about sex and in the long term earlier education has been proven to lower the spread of sti's and unwanted pregnancy.

it basically comes down to if you think cosmo should teach your child or a qulified teacher.

People bang on about how the act of teaching a child sex education takes away their innocence yet teaching abstinence is good for them. Of course abstinence can work but it works by telling kids their going to burn in hell if they have sex before marriage (as if marriage is as old as the human race itself).And children who do have sex after being taught this will be completely without knowledge on the subject and feel very guilty.

Fact is with proper education doesent make children have sex earlier however it can insure that when they do they will more likely to choose who with and when they want children, knowledge of the dangers of sexual diseases , better at talking to their own children about sex and more than likely more sexually competent.

Years ago children never receive sex education, yet there where fewer sexual problems and issues, now we teach children sex education and we have more sexual problems and issues.

I’d say no to sex education and yes to abstinence and innocence preservation

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Years ago children never receive sex education, yet there where fewer sexual problems and issues, now we teach children sex education and we have more sexual problems and issues.

This is quite simply not true. Once again, you make a statement you can't possible substantiate, because it's sheer crap.
People kept their problems to themselves and lived for years in guilt and torment because they thought they were abnormal. Psychological and physical harm was done to many because they were ignorant about sex and sexuality. You should be proud to be British - your country was a pioneer in bringing child abuse and incest issues out into the open to enable the victims of such heinous acts to get help. With your preferred silence, catholic priests would still be merrily sexually abusing children and the world would be blissfully ignorant, or worse, closing its eyes because they're "men of god" to be trusted. Women would still be even more frightened to report rape, young girls would still think they were dying when they first bled, young gays and lesbians would be facing even more prejudice and torment than they do now, and young girls would still have no clue how they got pregnant or that uncle was lying when he said it was OK to stick it there but don't tell anybody. Don't you read the stats? The facts? In countrues like France and the Netherlands where sex education is very open, teenage rates of pregnancy and STDs are LOWER, becuase informed teenagers usually opt to wait. Preaching abstinence at them pushes them in the opposite direction.

jimmyjack - your name appears throughout this section without end. You are obsessed with sex. I have two theories:

1) you're thoroughly repressed by some catholic or other similarly abusive upbringing which has made you thoroughly uncomfortable with your own sexuality, and you channel your self-hatred into hatred towards others. If that's the case, you should loosen up, go have fun with a hooker (or more likely, a rent boy) and learn to enjoy the immense field of pleasure and mutual fulfillment that human sexuality can offer.

2) If 1) isn't true, then perhaps you're not for real. You're a troll, deliberately posting crap you know is not true in order to enflame, in which case we should all put you on our ignore lists, coz that's what your type hate the most: no audience.

Now I know it's either 1) or 2), but please enlighten us, which of the two is it?

 

[jimmyjack]

This is quite simply not true. Once again, you make a statement you can't possible substantiate, because it's sheer crap.
People kept their problems to themselves and lived for years in guilt and torment because they thought they were abnormal. Psychological and physical harm was done to many because they were ignorant about sex and sexuality. You should be proud to be British - your country was a pioneer in bringing child abuse and incest issues out into the open to enable the victims of such heinous acts to get help. With your preferred silence, catholic priests would still be merrily sexually abusing children and the world would be blissfully ignorant, or worse, closing its eyes because they're "men of god" to be trusted. Women would still be even more frightened to report rape, young girls would still think they were dying when they first bled, young gays and lesbians would be facing even more prejudice and torment than they do now, and young girls would still have no clue how they got pregnant or that uncle was lying when he said it was OK to stick it there but don't tell anybody. Don't you read the stats? The facts? In countrues like France and the Netherlands where sex education is very open, teenage rates of pregnancy and STDs are LOWER, becuase informed teenagers usually opt to wait. Preaching abstinence at them pushes them in the opposite direction.

jimmyjack - your name appears throughout this section without end. You are obsessed with sex. I have two theories:

1) you're thoroughly repressed by some catholic or other similarly abusive upbringing which has made you thoroughly uncomfortable with your own sexuality, and you channel your self-hatred into hatred towards others. If that's the case, you should loosen up, go have fun with a hooker (or more likely, a rent boy) and learn to enjoy the immense field of pleasure and mutual fulfillment that human sexuality can offer.

2) If 1) isn't true, then perhaps you're not for real. You're a troll, deliberately posting crap you know is not true in order to enflame, in which case we should all put you on our ignore lists, coz that's what your type hate the most: no audience.

Now I know it's either 1) or 2), but please enlighten us, which of the two is it?

Teachers are to be trusted yet they are guilty of child abuse too, in fact many female teachers no less, and we have seen judges, engineers and social workers, all guilty of child abuse. Singling out one profession is not an argument that substantiates your claim.

Secondly your argument that sexual problems are not greater now than they use to be is a lie, STD’s and AIDS are all at epidemic levels, however, we have condoms and all sorts of science and technologies to help us, yet since we have had these tools to our exposal we have only inflamed the problem. Educating people on how to have sex is the most foolish tactic to take if you are attempting to stop people having sex, do you not even agree with that?

Your arguments are amongst the weakest I have ever seen.

As for your attempts to discover my sexual orientation, I would have to say you are a fool to assume I’m gay, when it is quite clear that I perceive homosexuality as a perversion and dysfunctional. Furthermore, how are you advancing the debate with childish comments about my up bringing, please act your age.

 

[vergiss]

As for your attempts to discover my sexual orientation, I would have to say you are a fool to assume I’m gay, when it is quite clear that I perceive homosexuality as a perversion and dysfunctional.

Face it, no straight guy spends as much time thinking about gay men and gay sex as you do.

 

[jimmyjack]

Face it, no straight guy spends as much time thinking about gay men and gay sex as you do.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I spend most of my time demonstrating the evils of abortion; does that make me an abortionist?

Your methods for establishing facts are lame.

 

[jallman]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I spend most of my time demonstrating the evils of abortion; does that make me an abortionist?

Your methods for establishing facts are lame.

I dunno, man...it makes total sense to me. You spend an awful lot of time dwelling on the sex lives of people you claim to find so distasteful. Maybe you just need a good deep dickin to make it all better. :rofl

 

[Captain America]

Sex education at 8?

Do they make condoms that small?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I would have to say you are a fool to assume I’m gay, when it is quite clear that I perceive homosexuality as a perversion and dysfunctional. .

Many overtly homophobic people express such views precisely because they are frightened of their own feelings. Call me a fool if you wish: your namecalling says more about your desperation in the arguments you repeatedly lose, but I would suggest you go away and study some basic psychology. For a guy that can't stop thinking about d*ck.......

 

[Captain America]

Many overtly homophobic people express such views precisely because they are frightened of their own feelings. Call me a fool if you wish: your namecalling says more about your desperation in the arguments you repeatedly lose, but I would suggest you go away and study some basic psychology. For a guy that can't stop thinking about d*ck.......

You noticed that too, huh? :roll:

What do they call that? Self-loathing?

 

[jimmyjack]

Many overtly homophobic people express such views precisely because they are frightened of their own feelings. Call me a fool if you wish: your namecalling says more about your desperation in the arguments you repeatedly lose, but I would suggest you go away and study some basic psychology. For a guy that can't stop thinking about d*ck.......

I do not fear homosexuals, I fear the Lord.

Where have I ever called anyone a name?

 

[FallingPianos]

you are a fool

Where have I ever called anyone a name?

7 posts earlier.

 

[vergiss]

I do not fear homosexuals, I fear the Lord.

Aha. Well, that explains why you won't admit it. Scared he'll smite you?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I do not fear homosexuals, I fear the Lord.

Chill. If God is love and all that, dosn't he love you all, gay, straight and bi? He supposedly made you that way. I don't buy the god thing, but it amazes me that some of you who do fail to see the contradictions in the things you say.

In any case, Jesus (mother's husband wasn't the real dad) loved his glass of wine, enjoyed the company of a supposed prostitute, and had twelve guys in dresses follow him round on his roadshow. You haven't worked out the deal yet?

Where have I ever called anyone a name?

You called me a fool. The words pot, kettle and black came flying into my head. You were chastised by the mods on another thread for your rudeness towards me, so tell me, just how "christian" is that?

 

[jimmyjack]

Chill. If God is love and all that, dosn't he love you all, gay, straight and bi? He supposedly made you that way. I don't buy the god thing, but it amazes me that some of you who do fail to see the contradictions in the things you say.

God did not make you gay, and he loves murderers too, but that doesn’t mean you will not go to hell for committing murder, so chill now burn later by all means.

In any case, Jesus (mother's husband wasn't the real dad) loved his glass of wine, enjoyed the company of a supposed prostitute, and had twelve guys in dresses follow him round on his roadshow. You haven't worked out the deal yet?

What is your point?

You called me a fool. The words pot, kettle and black came flying into my head. You were chastised by the mods on another thread for your rudeness towards me, so tell me, just how "christian" is that?

I was warned, because I called you a communist, yet it is true you are a communist, it says so in your profile. If I said you are deficient in judgment, would you still claim I have called you a name? Well that is what you are, and that is the definition of a fool, so you can criticise me for that but it is a fact. However when you call me gay, that is a deliberate assumption on which you have no proof therefore it is an insult, learn the difference.

So please don’t forget you call me gay, you offer me your dirty services and many more offensive innuendos, and you even insult my religion, and yet do I get upset? No, because love is slow to anger and rich in love. So to answer your question, yes, that is very Christian of me.

 

[jimmyjack]

7 posts earlier.

Is it still a name when I say you are: One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding?

 

[tecoyah]

However when you call me gay, that is a deliberate assumption on which you have no proof therefore it is an insult, learn the difference.

You Gotta admit Jimmy.....there does seem to be a fixation here on the Gay issue, Hell 19 of your last 25 posts are deaking with Homosexuality. One is forced to assume you either have a major issue with the lifestyle....or are indeed confused about your own sexuality.