Sex Education

This thread is intended to be a continuation of the Sex Ed. talk going on in the Katrina Thread.http://EvC Forum: Help Lizard Breath Save Bush from Hurricane Katrina -->EvC Forum: Help Lizard Breath Save Bush from Hurricane KatrinaThis message has been edited by Yaro, 09-08-2005 01:16 PM

setting aside for the moment the question of "How the hell did you guys go from Katrina to sex ed?"The problem with sexual education in this country is our cultural heritage of puritanism. People are embarrised / ashamed to talk about sex as adults, or to children.People don't want their children taught sex education, but they themselves refuse to teach their children.As a result we end up with a society that turns it's back on sex in the classroom and towards "the forbidden topic" in our entertainment.If sex wasn't so secret and naughty, I doubt that we'd have the bigger issues in the sexual arena that we have (porn, child molestation, etc).

I agree 100%

Let's continue! Sex is amoral. From a fundamentalist's point of view, God has put boundries around sex in the form of marriage. Sex + monogamous marriage between a man and a woman = the basic family structure. Is the sex outside of marriage bad? No. Are the results of that sex bad? Yes. Premiscuous sex leads to pregnancy, STDs, and negative emotional issues IE guilt, anger etc. Sex within marriage just leads to pregnancy. Yes, there are emotional issues, but they aren't the same. And that is your opinion, and I have mine. We disagree. I know that telling people to have self control will benefit them in the long run.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I agree with you that parents should teach their kids about sex and alot do not. You are correct there. I disagree. Have sex education in the classroom all you want. I did. The biological process of sex is a natural science and should be taught. Specific questions, normally embarrasing to kids, should be asked. Where I draw the line is that schools should not teach my kids about condemns and promote sexual activity.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

How is teaching kids about safe sex promoting sexual activity? The idea is to educatre children about the proper attitudes toward sex. Abstinance can be included among these, but it should not be stressed as the only option.Personaly, I see no problem with "pre-marital" sex as long as the person is responsible, respectfull, and practices safe sex. It's a question of attitude and education.

Did you see what you just did, you interchanged two things that aren't necisseraly equal. Not all pre-marital sex is "Premiscuous" sex. No one is advocating Premiscuous, irresponsible, sex.So, as long as Sex Ed. promotes safe sex, discurages Premiscuous sex, and teaches kids proper attitudes of respect and mutual concent, is there an issue?This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-08-2005 01:45 PM

...and only from a fundamentalist point of view. I don't consider sex amoral. What about the family structure where the adults simply choose not to have kids, or are physically incapable due to infertility? Are they less of a family becuase of the lack of children?What about the couples who choose not to marry, but have kids and live together in the same way a married couple would? Are they less of a family becuase they aren't married? Promiscuous sex doesn't lead to pregnancy if precautions are taken. STD's happen whether you are monogamous or not - just ask the folks who were infected with AIDS via blood transfusions. Marriage does not act as some magic anti-STD barrier, and neither does monogamy. As for guilt and nager - I'd like to see a single married couple that doesn't get mad at each other or feel guilty about something they did to their loved one every now and again.Your implied assertion that somehow these things are solely the fault of promiscuity and that marriage is immune to the same things is rediculous. Of course you tell people to have self-control. But that's not the issue here. The issue is sex ed, and the fundamentalist avoidance of letting kids know the truth about sex, STDs, contraception and protection, and the general risks of sex itself (whether married and monogamous or not). By opposing sex ed, and not teaching kids about such things, this idiotic mindset actually causes pregnancy and STDs by not helping the kids make better choices. They are going to have sex. You can't stop them. Just teach them the truth and help them protect themselves, and teen pregnancy rates and STD infections will decrease."Abstinance only" only works if the kids actually practivce abstinance, and we KNOW that the majority won't.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Let's set the record straight. No one here is promoting the teaching of Promiscuous sex. We are talking about sex education that teaches proper attitudes tword sex, and does not promote abstinance as the ONLY option. Although, abstinance as AN option, should of cource, be taught.Agreed?This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-08-2005 01:52 PM

Freudian slip? hehe Teaching kids about condoms does not teach them to go and have an orgy. Slippery slope fallacy.Teaching kids about condoms and other forms of protection does tech the kids who will have sex anyway how to protect themselves and prevent the issues of STDs and teen pregnancy. Obviously the parents aren't doing a good enough job, so the scools need to teach it. It's certainly not harmful.I learned about condoms and STDs and such when I was in high school, and I certainly didn't run off to become a male prostitute or start up an orgy with my classmates. But when I did decide to have sex, I knew how to prevent my girlfriend from getting pregnant, and I knew how to prevent STDs from spreading. I would have had sex either way - but at least this way, I knew how to not screw up my life.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

What do you consider it?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

What is your definition of this?

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

You missed it. Read back to message 9 on this thread. I posted a note of clarification.

I think Rhavin may have misread you as saying it was imoral. Being moraly wrong.Not, amoral meaning moraly neutral.

That was the case. Since fudamentalists tend to consider sex to be immoral, I simply read Tal's post wrong.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.