ChurchOfBruce

I also disagree with this.

Schools recognize that many healthy teenagers are going to have sex no matter what. Schools also recognize that parental bleating about such, especially using emotional or religious arguments, is oftentimes as productive as spitting into the wind. So, schools think it's healthier to have *protected* sex than *unprotected* sex--not that it's healthier to have sex in the first place.

I have daughters. They are too young for this now, but they won't be. If you (generic you) have sons, and all you are teaching them is "Don't do it! Wait until marriage! Our religion preaches this!", and this is all the information your raging-hormone sons have when they come in contact with my daughters--you're damn right I want the schools to teach them otherwise!

Now, my daughters *are* going to get all the facts. But I do *not* trust you (generic again) to teach those facts to your kids. And if you think that "Just say no" blather and appeals to religion are going to stop many testosterone-addled adolescent males from hitting on my daughters, you are *dreaming*.

--Frank

-DB-

WOW! I never thought I would hear such a thing from a Christian. No offense, but all of my Christian friends are still pissed that there is no prayer in school.

dk

dk: I have absolutely no idea what your point was. The topic is honest sex education. My point was that the instruction on human sexuality in public schools has far reaching consequences at emotional, intellectual, moral, developmental, physical, and spiritual levels, upon parents, children, family, culture and society. If the opinion makers are clueless about the cause of homosexuality then any instruction of students on the matter is honestly unreliable.
dk: I hope you read my retraction on feelings. Everyone holds onto feelings they trust, and we all should to be considerate of one another’s feelings. When people hurt one another’s feelings for fun or spite then the residual affect leads people to distrust one another and harbor hateful feelings. Nobody trusts their feelings more than a bigot. A bigot’s feelings overwhelm their reason, faith and intellect. So I didn’t mean to imply you shouldn’t trust your feelings, or that your feelings were untrustworthy, only that feelings alone are often untrustworthy and blind.
dk: I asked whether or not your parents were victims of –Culture –Lies –Betrayal. I asked the question because you have expressed feelings of victimization, specifically that your parents have victimized you. Clearly your parents love you and visa versa, so nobody intended to victimize anyone, whatever the reality. This makes your parents and you victims of their feelings. I apologize for framing a leading question but “If your feelings are trustworthy then your parents feelings are hurtful”. Clearly you and your parents have a misunderstanding neither of you intended, because your feelings AS A FAMILY are all wrapped up in knots. Clearly you and your parents both feel betrayed by the other and each is trying to justify themselves with feelings of love though be it parental verses a daughters love. If we assume love does no harm, then the cause of your distress is unreliable feelings. I said don’t play the blame game, because blame is an unreliable feeling. Then you transferred your parents blame to RC.
dk: Cartesian thought dictates logic orient identity (classification) appropriately from an apparent and verifiable designation. Therefore it’s logical to pick a biological orientation for human sex assignments because biology is an apparent and verifiable designation. By extension It’s illogical to pick a pseudo-psychological orientation for sex assignments because pseudo-psychological sex assignments are transparent and unverifiable. Lighten up kiddo.
dk: I don’t thing you want me to accept your apology, so let me apologize for clarity sake.
dk: - Hey, an honest person feels squeamish at the prospect of telling lies. A Liar will tell a lie when the truth would sound better, just out of habit. I don’t think you’re a liar. An honest person often justifies a lie by saying, “they didn’t have a right to know”.
dk: If parents don’t have a right to know about their child’s sexual feelings and experiences, then children can’t deceive or lie to parents about their sexual feelings and experiences.
dk: US public schools teach students are at liberty to have sex with whomever they please, then proceed to instruct students on the choices, options and mechanics of safe sex; then set up support programs to encourage safe sex. Liberty is an exercise of power that requires no justification to anyone. If your school taught that sex is a personal liberty then perhaps the school justified deceiving your parents. A lie is withholding the truth from someone who has a right to know, so if parents have no right to know, then there is no deceit or lie. We aren’t discussing sexual orientation, RC or culture, the thread is about honest sex education. I’m not trying to offend anybody, but to bring the discussion back to the central issue, “honest sex education”. A pivotal aspect of the discussion is who has a right to know what, as you said earlier, “I have simply been careful with my choice of words. and, I have no need for my school to justify any of my beliefs or opinions.” I am a little perplexed at this point. How can parents or schools honestly educate kids about sex, when students are at liberty to lie about sex to the school and parents?
dk: I got the idea from your statements juiblex, Clearly you blame parents for raising sexually repressed, dysfunctional little girls.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

<ol type="1">[*]Most public schools teach sex is a normative beneficial experience for healthy teenagers.[*]Many public schools teach and protect their students liberty to have sex with whomever they please.[*]If it wasn't healthy for students to have sex with whomever they pleased then public schools wouldn't hand out birth control and condoms to students, and many do.[/list=a]
Do you disagree?
Danielboy says I do.

So Daniel boy,
On each bullet item Do you agree positively or negatively and how?
On each bullet item What can schools honestly teach (in principle) about sex that is beneficial and why?
On each bullet item What should schools -conceal from- or –deceive- students about sex and why?

For example should schools openly discuss as normative or diviant sex practices like bestiality, step sex, incest, group sex, rape, statutory rape, safe rape, promiscuity, and sadomasochism. Whose to judge?

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

Lets be honest after all we are adults.

• Teenagers can have consensual sex with whomever they please, on this we both agree.
• So to be honest schools should teach students they are at liberty to have Safe Consensual Sex (SCS). To teach anything else would be a lie.
• SCS is a healthy teenage activity, and students are at liberty to have SCS, so schools protect the liberties and rights of their students, by Law.
• Parents don't have a right to know about their kids sexual education or sexual activities, and the school protects students sexual privacy, that’s the Law.
• Parents that don’t like it, can go pound sand.
• Any parent that believes their kid will confess sexual activities to a judgmental parent needs their skull examined, and the school will recommendation a family counselor at $60/hr.
• The shrink will inform the parent they have authority to interfere in their child’s sexual activities.
• If the kid comes home with an incurable STD, suicidal, emotionally bankrupt or pregnant then it’s the parents job and responsibility to pick up the pieces, and the school will recommend appropriate professional help.

Let’s be honest. . Parents are on the hook for unconditional love, and deep pockets. The school fills in the blanks about SCS, and protects the students sexual liberty against parental authority.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

ChurchOfBruce

• Yup
  
  
  Quote:

  So to be honest schools should teach students they are at liberty to have Safe Consensual Sex (SCS). To teach anything else would be a lie.

  Oh, they already *know* that they are at liberty to have sex. It's the "safe, consensual" part that needs to be drummed into them. I don't worry about my daughters hitting sixteen and deciding to have sex. I worry about them hitting sixteen and getting *pressured* into having sex that they really don't want to have. Liberty to say yes also means liberty to say no.
  
  
  Quote:

  SCS is a healthy teenage activity, and students are at liberty to have SCS, so schools protect the liberties and rights of their students, by Law. Parents don't have a right to know about their kids sexual education or sexual activities, and the school protects students sexual privacy, that’s the Law.

  I don't think that's the law everywhere. There are plenty of schools whose sex-ed programs can be opted out of.
  
  
  
  Quote:

  Parents that don’t like it, can go pound sand.

  When speaking of teenagers, this is true of many things .
  
  
  
  Quote:

  Any parent that believes their kid will confess sexual activities to a judgmental parent needs their skull examined, and the school will recommendation a family counselor at $60/hr.

  Yup. Moral of the story? Don't be judgemental.
  
  
  
  Quote:

  The shrink will inform the parent they have authority to interfere in their child’s sexual activities. If the kid comes home with an incurable STD, suicidal, emotionally bankrupt or pregnant then it’s the parents job and responsibility to pick up the pieces, and the school will recommend appropriate professional help.

Yup. However, if you do your job properly in the first place, STDs, pregnancy, and emotional unhealthiness (because of sex, anyway) are much less likely to occur. Or do you think that *any* occurence of SCS in teenagers leads to one of these outcomes? Nope, it is sex that is *not* safe, consensual, or accompanied by *guilt* that leads to these things.


As to the first part, yes. As to the second part, the school only fills in the blanks about sex when the *parents* don't. My daughters will *not* need the school's sex-ed classes. They won't hear anything there that they won't have already heard from me.

--Frank

ju'iblex

ju'iblex

firstly, i wont be able to respond to any posts anywhere near as much as before because in about 3 hours im going on holidays. regretable yes, but hey, its not like i get to go the fascist state (ie. the vatican) everyday. so for a month i will be gone. dk if you are interested in maintaining this discussion, i would recommend doing it via email, so feel free. that way we can also get far off the topic and not be bothered by the mods.
i dont believe this is a subject that schools teach, and if they are, then yes the information they are giving could possibly be unreliable. but considering no school ive ever heard of has even tried to do this, this comment is invalid.

but anyway, i will respond to the rest, but im a little behind in time here. so email will have to suffice.

anybody else who wishes to pick holes in dk's logic, feel free. god knows anything you people could come up with would be 100 times more coherent and intelligent than my childish ramblings.

dk

First I made a typo on one of the bulletes
* The shrink will inform the parent they have very limited if any authority to interfere in their child’s sexual activities. /* the only actually authority a parent has is to relocate the kid by moving, relative or boarding school.
=====
If a parent does educate their kid about sex, and the school offends the parent’s sensibilities or values, it’s a very rare kid that will risk rocking the boat. From the kids perspective the school is protecting sexual liberty, and the parent is an ominous uninformed authority figure. As long as the school entertains verses embarrasses a kid, kids like sex classes. Most sex education takes place in social studies and is systematically integrated across the curriculum. For example I remember a math teacher who got into trouble for teaching kids fractions, weights & measures and economics by hypothetically cutting up and selling coke (flower), marijuana (grass) etcetera; pretend drugs.. It peaked the kids interest and they certainly learned their fractions, weights and measures, maybe it was the economics that got the math teacher into trouble.

Back on topic, if the school reinforces the parents message then all is well, but the parents never know unless they sit next to their kid in class. Government sex education is social engineering and cuts the parents out of the loop, but still holds the parents responsible. The parents aren’t responsible because they are out of the loop. The schools not responsible because the parent is. Nobody is accountable, and that leaves 14 year olds uncovered, accountable to nobody. Lets be honest,is this fair to a 14 year old kid, schools or parents?

By the way not all kids think they are at liberty to have sex with whomever they please. A small but shrinking minority honor and obey thier parents, so they are covered by their parents authority (protected). Kids that don't honor or obey their parents, and many schools make it quite clear its a ritual rite to dishonor and disobey parents, are on their own. These kids were astutely described by PT Barnam, "There's a sucker born every minute".

I'm not saying parents and their teens should agree on everything, but they do need to understand how to conduct an honest respectful confrontation. Its the ability to sustain an honest confrontation, not sneaking around behind one another's back, that brings about independence, character, maturity and adulthood.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: dk ]

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

-DB-

I dont think I could disagree with you more.

If a parent has a relationship with their child then none of these evils that you speak of would exist. If the parent asks the child "What did you do in school today" then the parent will not have to sit next to the child in class, yet will know what is going on anyway. Also, I do not believe that children should blindly obey their parents. This does not mean that they should rebel against whatever they can but that they should think for themselves. I hope that I am going to be a good enough parent that I will encourage my children to think for themselves and decide what they want to decide.

In the end I feel it all comes down to the relationship that the parents build with their children, and not what the school does. You are basing your arguments on pretty crappy parents.