It starts off all right:
In their most impressionable adolescent years, a third of high school students say they have experienced unwanted sex. The vulnerability of teenagers, especially girls, is highlighted by a survey of the sexual experiences of almost 3000 students, in years 10 and 12. It found the most common reasons for unwanted sex were pressure from a partner or just being drunk.
Researcher Anthony Smith told The Age that, strikingly, girls in year 12 were having more sexual partners and drinking 30 per cent more than they did when a similar survey was done in 2002.
... then it draws precisely the wrong conclusion:
Professor Smith said the extent of unwanted sex detected in teenagers underscored the need for sex education in schools to better explain links between underage drinking and sexual behaviour that might be accompanied with regret later.
It underscores nothing of the bloody kind - it underscores the exact opposite. This so-called sex education in schools is what has caused the whole thing, along with other outside influences. If parents would just assert themselves - WTF are they frightened of - that their kiddies won't love them any more if they make moves to restrict their kids movements by a reasonable amount, teach responsibility and then go into that school and find out who's pressurizing your kid to have sex?
If every parent stopped being a rabbit, wringing the hands and saying, "Oh, what can we do?", together they'd change the scene within a year. They're beyond your reach? Bullsh - kids are kids and respond to Fair, Firm and Friendly. So what if your the Great Ogre for a couple of years? So what if they say they hate you but deep down, they don't?
Kid's perspective
Everyone is agreed about rape, yes? That it is the most debilitating thing, that it's a gross violation, yes? Well what about the kid with no world experience and no judgement, having to do things ahead of time and why? Because a bunch of peers press gang him or her into it. If a kid has sex even one day before being ready, even one minute, then it is rape. Just because the perpetrators are underage and can't be charged, does that make it any better?
Think about it. Think back to being a kid and how there were things you didn't want to do. Think of a whole gang of kids who are expecting you to do it. Think of the way you can never tell mum or dad. Think of the teachers who are aiding and abetting this, teachers of the "all things are OK" ilk today, telling their classes that "when" they have sex, not "if" or "years later, when you're old enough", "years later, after you're married" for goodness sake, laughing and joking along so that the kids think their teachers are "with it" in the modern world - think of that kid going along with it all because she [or he] has to but silently not wanting any of it.
Does anyone think of that? And please don't say teachers don't do that because I've seen them having a laugh in the staffroom about it and saying things like, "Oo, Felicity's starting early."
So lets start by ticking this professor off with his "progressive" ideas and then we can start to get kids back into the families where they belong, free of all this external mentoring.
A society which has ceased to protect its children is a society which has ceased to function.
.
Parents and schools are facing a losing cultural battle. A survey of teen girls a few years ago found that the top career the average schoolgirl wants now is to be a glamour model. Culturally we have framed their aspirations around what's on magazine covers, on TV, in films and on-line. You CANNOT seem to fight it. Sex is a throwaway part of all that cultural saturation. The days of page 3 being the naughty exception are well and truly numbered. It would be nice to think we could raise our cultural standards out of sex tits and ass for one minute but that's essentially what modern western culture has framed itself around in the last 10-15 years. You know our culture is in decline when porn stars write bestsellers and guys think nothing of telling you which sites get them off. That horror story a year ago about a handicapped teen who was gangraped and had her genitals covered in acid was made all the more grotesque because they uploaded the cameraphone video to a pornsite. These days sex on line is a big old shoulder shrug among teenagers so how on earth do parents and schools cope with the reality that actual sex is then cheap teenage currency.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. Unfortunately, it's also part of a wider malaise in society with distinct causes and even if part of this is dealt with, there's still be that attitude in society, at least with ths generation.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the next generation of parents will react against all this.
When I was underage all we wanted to do was try it out but the girls were few and far between at that time. :( Now, as adults, we can't even talk about it in a reasonable manner.
ReplyDeleteKids do what they want and like adults they sometimes do things they don't want when they think it will benefit them. Having sex is one of those they are buying a friendship or relationship with nookie. Its a sign of their immaturity and one of the learning experiences that we all make.
All we can do is teach them right from wrong but when it comes to relationships all logic is out of the window. Adults and children share this issue.
IMO, it needs an adjustment in parenting and an adjustment in schooling to fit it.
I don't agree with you on the point that sex education in schools leads to children having sex, as if it is a green light.
ReplyDeleteEducation never hurt anyone.When we learned about Aids we didn't all run out, engaging in high risk sex to catch it!
Sex Ed is not teaching kids the Kama Sutra or Oral Techniques 101. Kids have to be educated about situations they will encounter so that they can make informed decisions. It also teaches them about diseases, no doubt, consequences of teen sex and demystifies it[which is important].
Coming from a prudish mother whose only Sex Ed was' Don't do it '[or you'll get a bash] and no Sex Ed at school[which I would have welcomed] I was very frightened/intimidated by the whole prospect.
I knew nothing about sexual exploitation, diseases, birth control-nada.
By contrast, in my late 30's,I had many sex talks with a teen girl I knew in the same situation.[her Mother[who did not believe in discussing sex with teens & thought me inappropriate,yet herself had never heard of Chlamydia[the highest teen sex disease, which, if undetected, can leave a woman infertile]].
I knew the young teen's friends were having sex and would like mock her for being a 'virgin' as mine did, and would apply pressure. I spoke at length about everything, including diseases, peer pressure, the mentality of both boys/girls that age,the consequences[everything BUT techniques].
I encouraged her to wait until she finished college.I equally encouraged her to carry condoms wherever she went so if she was drunk/ pressured/ or gave in to the moment she would at least use protection to minimize the consequences for her.
I also taught her the importance of making it clear that no condom meant no sex[and assured her that she'd be surprised how quickly men would relent when they realized it was a deal breaker].
The girl did carry condoms everywhere with her,but more importantly she was emotionally equipped to ward off peer pressure & insecurities [having an older friend, whom she felt was cool, giving her the confidence to do so].
She did not have sex until she graduated college and credits me with waiting because of me and had it not been for my talks, she would have bowed to pressure much sooner :)
The minute she had sex- she came and told me.She was 18 and I was so proud of her in this day and age.[for a teen in 2005,not bad.][by contrast, her younger sister who did not get these talks as I thought she was too young- had sex at 12 and an abortion soon after].My little friend's friends[whose mothers did not talk sex with them] were all having regular sex at 14 & 15, some having babies at 16.]
THAT'S what sex ed does for kids!
Sex is too life altering,with potentially devastating consequences, not to arm our children with all the knowledge and facts so they will have the confidence to make informed decisions and protect themselves.
The fear of the unknown also has to be removed to lessen the whole frightening msytique of it, and not knowing what to do when the time comes.
Clearly you have not been in schools for many years, Uber. There is even a body of evidence now that exposing kids to this so young induces thinking about something they would not be bothered with [pre-15] in a culture as it was two decades ago. In fact they weren't.
ReplyDeleteForcing them into lessons on this takes it away from the home, where it should be taught and into the public arena where the socialists want it. this is the whole thrust these days - take it from the parents, parents are happy they need not bother - state takes over the responsibility.
Further, I don't think parents or frumpy teachers who kids will see as outdated and uncool, should teach Sex Ed. It should be left to high school grads who are seemingly young enough to relate and rate as cool, as they would likely have more effect than staid, boring adults[who no teen listens to].
ReplyDeleteThey shoulnd't appear like classes,but fun, informative informal talks-where the child feels they are slitening to a mentor.
Not true , James,
ReplyDeleteKids are saturated with sex from almost birth via the media,magazine and tv.
Look at Bratz dolls alone?
Advertisers use sex to sell even when the target market is children.
Kids are thinking [and having sex ] pushed in their faces from avery young age so we may as well get the right info to them in a timely and most effective fashion.
And many parents[like mine] shirk their responsibility[esp British parents] because we live in a sexually repressed society where ignorance is bliss.
ReplyDeleteI didn't even know how to put on a condom until I was 23. I did not know with my first partner that the pill was not good enough as it did not protect against disease. I didn't know sex diseases existed.
James,
ReplyDeleteTwo decades ago, we did not have sex ed in Canada and my friends were having sex at 14/15.And that was the standard then. Believe me, me being a virgin until 19 made me the 'freak'.
I have to say I agree with Ubermouth and should have said so at the start as your post was centred around this. Sex ed at schools is vital. My parents were never going to give me the advice I needed and I would NEVER have felt comfortable asking them. It is way too vital to be left to chance. More so these days with the relentless durge of sexualised images and attitudes getting to teens. A great book I would recommend is Female Chauvinist Pigs: The Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy, a lively smart read which closely examines the effects on teenage girls in one chapter.
ReplyDeleteAlso if you want to depress yourself a little further check out the BBC today re "sexting" in schools. Teen girls texting boyfriends nude images of themselves which wind up on the net.
But yes overall I agree with UM and can fully relate to the experiences she sketched out.
I always remember my dad banned Just Seveteen from the house but we still managed to get copies. So the idea that you can stop your kids experiencing peer pressure or protect thenm from the freely available porn sites featuring teen girls these days is sadly hopelessly misguided. The thought that girls grow up thinking their value is based solely on what is between their legs, bodyweight, looks and porn star rating (rate my girlfriend dot com) is so so depressing.
It will take a few generations to overcome what libertarian licence, liberal parenting skills and the internet has unleashed on our children.
Interesting discussion all, I hope to be back with some comments, in depth.
ReplyDeleteJust some quick thoughts, I do know that respect for the person is lacking in today's 'sex' (a person is an object) inundated society.
The intimacy is left out and there's only the focus on the instant satisfaction of the physical which is shallow, and leaves that empty feeling inside a person. (perhaps more so for women, but we are geared differently than a man with that)
...the old adage: 'a man gives love for sex, a woman gives sex for love'..or something like that.
Thank you Alison.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to state that The Netherlands teach kids about sex from the age of 4,with shows like Sesame Street showing kids how to put condoms on at that age.
Whilst shocking for a repressed nation like ours, the Dutch have the easiest access to abortion on demand in Europe , but the lowest teen pregnancy rates in all of Europe.
They also have the lowest teens having sex stats and teen sex diseases.
That's education and de-msytifying sex and the consequences.
How about "Sex on the NHS"?
ReplyDeleteI joke not - see this recent news report about a leaflet issued by a NHS trust in Sheffield:
"A LEAFLET promoting schoolchildren's right to an enjoyable sex life has been produced by an NHS trust in Sheffield.
"Aimed at youngsters aged 14 and over, the publication says experts concentrate too much on the need for safe sex and loving relationships and not enough on the pleasure sex can bring.
"The advice, which also claims regular sex is good for a healthy heart, has been circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers.
"Under the heading: An orgasm a day keeps the doctor away it asks: 'What about sex twice a week? Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week.'"
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/Controversy-over-39enjoy-sex39-leaflet.5463582.jp
No, you're in error, Uber. The rates of pregnancy are highest where sex ed is force on the children at an early age. All recent studies are confirming this. You're relying on the 70s stats.
ReplyDeleteSex education in schools was accompanied by an alarming rise in teen pregnancies and it can be traced form the early 70s in particular, when Neill and others started this PC rubbish which was conencted to Planned Parenthood, which came from the same group I've blogged about before.
The place for sex ed is in the home, as it was before the 70s and because of the non-preoccupation of the schools and the media with it, it was not the highest priority in those times, before the engineered sexual revolution, I mean.
This has been patiently explained by academics and researchers such as Dianne Ravitch and others. There is much material, if you're interested.
This is one tiny example offhand.
ReplyDeleteI know it feels to you that it must be so but statistics just don't support your contention.
Another
ReplyDeleteFor what happens in the Netherlands, try his report in The Times last year:
ReplyDeletehttp://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5208865.ece
Don't be fooled by so-called "studies" which purport to show that sex education in schools reduces pregnancies - it is the opposite.
ReplyDeleteThe line activists take is that teens want sex education, they don't ask parents, activists jump on that and say the programmes are not enough in schools but in fact, the problem is far deeper - the breakup of the family due to feminism and other ills and the flooding of teens' every waking hour with it in the media, in games, on the net and for real.
When the teachers join in, it is a complete cocoon of sex.
What needs to be done is to remove each of these things in turn.
There is no ignorance for a reason you two ladies are not old enough to remember. There was such a thing, way back when, called Mother and Daughter and Father and Son evenings, for parents who didn't feel comfortable with it and wanted more expert advice.
This is what you mean by sex education. But the difference was that this was the parents' and child's right to attend - it wasn't forced onto children at an increasingly early age.
To tell a child of twelve, unsolicited, how to fellate or do other things like that is simply criminal and those people should be drummed out and locked up.
To go into schools and "teach" children how to become homosexuals or to misinterpret normal experimental urges, aged 11 to 15, that this is homosexuality is also criminal.
Children have the right to be protected. That you would wish to expose them staggers me.
If you look at Bob's link, Holland and the trumpeting of lower pregnancies, the Left immediately shouts, "Sex Ed in schools."
ReplyDeleteIbet they'll read the first half of the report and forget or conveniently pass over one paragraph:
But Laura Watts, a British mother who has lived in the Netherlands for the past ten years, thinks that the lower rate of teenage pregnancy there may have more to do with family structure than with sex education. Dutch children are five times less likely to be living in a family headed by a lone parent, divorce rates are far lower and fewer mothers are in full-time employment.
There it is.
The link in my post above to the report in The Times (24 November 2008) about the Netherlands and sex education doesn't work so readers might instead try googling on this: Sex education: why the British should go Dutch
ReplyDeletehttp://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5208865.ece
As for alternative explanations of the low rate of teen pregnancies in the Netherlands, there are several credible theories, including the difference in (the relative stability of) family structures. Another is the different schooling system in the Netherlands - "Today, around 70% of primary and secondary pupils attend private independent schools"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Netherlands
This is precisely the point, Bob and now I'm going to get Statist political about it, something no one has done to this point in this.
ReplyDeleteAnything, anything at all which, in this current day, is designed to increase State control in the intimate aspects of people's private lives is what Hitler's Germany also did.
Any sort of State social engineering must be vigorously opposed to the nth degree. The State is pointing to teen pregnancies, casued by the disastrous destruction of education by PC devotees over three decades, plus the flood in the media and everywhere a child turns, as Alison said.
The State then, through the media, has the NERVE to say that the conclusion is more State control through enforced sex education - no better than enforced sterilaization in China.
NO, NO, NO!
The State has no place in this matter.
Interesting that you speak of State control, social engineering, James...but let's add another aspect to explore if those here will. Regardless if you "have religion" or not, this is sometimes an overlooked matter with this whole sex discussion, one which the pagan's haven't forgotten:
ReplyDeleteper your post James, you quoted the witch's bible:
"It is hoped by Wicca that the first full sexual experience will take place in the plesant [sic] surroundings of the coven and that the SPIRITUAL as well as the physical aspects of the experience will lead the child to a complete life."
...my emphasis on 'spiritual', because there is the matter of the soul, pyche, spirit of the child past the physical. We are higher animals and the promotion of sex as just physical is damaging. The promoting of sex to children when they are too young is damaging. Children are naturally inquisitive; just raise children around farm animals and that gives enough topics for conversational teaching alone.
Sex is something they need to know fully about eventually, but introduced as they are ready, by parents/family teaching. The only exception would be family dysfunction of incest, but that's not what is being discussed here.
I'm all for health courses with regard to protecting oneself from disease and for contraception instruction, but for a much older age, and segregated to promote decorem, respect and the exploration of questions without feeling embarrassed.
...and based on science not social 'exploring sexuality'. If there's any social exploring, it should be based on what it is to have intimacy and depth within a relationship. We are better than acting like the common dog.
Careful, though, this kind of thinking might lead to stable relationships, stable family dynamics, stable society, and a population that is stable enough not to need the State's control...
Well, I found myself agreeing with you till I got to the "blame the teachers " bit, James.
ReplyDeleteMany informed commentators believe that we could learn much from the schooling system in the Netherlands quite apart from sex education there:
ReplyDelete"The contribution of differences in the Dutch and British education and training systems to the significant Dutch advantage in manufacturing productivity levels is examined in this article. The Dutch schooling system is characterised by high standards in mathematics, the provision of vocational education at ages 14-16 for a third of all pupils, and widespread vocational education at 16 +. The proportion of the Dutch workforce attaining vocational qualification approaches that of Germany and is well ahead of Britain."
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000148671
"Spain is the youth unemployment capital of Europe, with a jobless rate among under-25s of 33.6% in the first quarter, but 12 of the EU's 27 members had youth jobless rates above 20%. Honourable exceptions with rates below 10% were Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands. The Dutch rate for under-25s was a mere 6% in the first quarter, though latest national figures suggest it has risen to more than 11%."
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/cat_david_smiths_other_articles.html
James,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but you are ignoring so many other radical changes in our society which leads to more accurate stats for teen sex/pregnancy.
Looking at the history of the Pill alone....
Available in the US since 1960. Later in the UK and [in the UK at least] only available at that time -until at least the mid 60's -for MARRIED women only.
That alone tells you how far we have come as a society in our views on sexuality.
In the '60's[in the UK] one was a minor until 21 and parents had a right to place pregnant 'minor' in a home for 'unwed mothers',where great pressure was exerted on them to adopt their children out[abortion being illegal].
It was such a stigma[with no social support for young mothers] that minors had no rights, no support and no respect. Oftentimes, they were 'sent away' to have the baby & adopt it out in secret,so as to not ruin her reputation, bring shame upon the family or ruin her chances of making a good marriage match.
THERE WAS NO SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOL IN THOSE DAYS and far less parents,especially in this repressive society [whose parents lacked technical sexual knowledge-[except, insert/ pull out-repeat as desired]and were less inclined to discuss sex with their children anyway.
The 'Pill' did not create the sexual revoltution[again, at least in UK as it was not available initially to them] the teenage angst and breaking away from parental,church and societal constraints and oppression did![ as well as drugs, [sex]and rock n' roll :]
By the '80's[in Canada now] one had to be 18 to get the Pill....then 16[with parents consent].Now I doubt there is an age restriction and minor's rights dictate that their parents do not have to be informed by the school[I don't agree with that btw].
It is now a prosecutable crime to coerce or bully anyone into an unwanted abortion or adoption. There is now social structures which will fund teenagers who choose to keep their babies.
Societal stigmas have been removed. No longer do women risk a decent marriage if she has a child out of wedlock[in theory- I think it does] and all this, along with a swift progression of a repressed sexual society to an overt anything-goes- sexual society frees teenagers to have sex as their raging hormones have always directed them down that inevitable path[informed or not].
Teens have ALWAYS been sexually active[the baby boom of WW11- were not all 'married'/older women!] and become pregnant because that is biology at play.
The difference is that the stigmatization of yesteryear hid the true stats.
There is no doubt a rise in teen pregnancy today,but you can't blame Sex Ed exclusively.
Also, every generation is more sophisticated than the last[ I was still playing with Barbies at 13] so naturally they are going to speed along the phases, we lingered at longer.
There is only one reason for higher teen pregnancies and that is an irresponsibility/immaturity/lack of knowledge in teens engaging in activities that their bodies are ready for-but not their emotions/maturity.
But as hormones normally dictate when children will become sexually active[and growth hormones in meatcould even share a culpability] we can't stop them from becoming sexually active, so better they have the knowledge.
If parents WERE doing their job at home, even with Sex Ed, the teen pregnancy rates and disease stats would be far less[as well as underage drinking. And I am not aware of any 'drinking ed classes ,we can blame THAT stat on, so do explain that rise. :)]
Uber, you've been hoodwinked, as we all have been, by the clever use of stats to obfuscate what is really happening.
ReplyDeleteYou are QUITE wrong on this.
This was shown in the above comments between your 2nd last comment and this one above. Perhaps you didn't have time to take them in.
Try reading them and the latest research on the matter.
"The 'Pill' did not create the sexual revoltution[again, at least in UK as it was not available initially to them] the teenage angst and breaking away from parental,church and societal constraints and oppression did![ as well as drugs, [sex]and rock n' roll :]"
ReplyDeleteIn this comment lie all the falsehoods which have been foisted onto us by the same crew I've been steadfastly opposing since the inception of this blog.
The pill came out of commissioned research by the same people behind Planned Parenthood, with connections to Lucis Trust via a series of steps and you know who that trust represents!
It was a response to the induced sexual revolution, following the time honoured Hegelian dialectic - create a problem, let there be an outcry [teens], offer a solution [the pill] which also sweeps in your other purposes, e.g. the breakdown of the family.
You can't see this becasue you're of the Left and you haven't read all the material. Your reading has been otherwise. If I'd been in your position, I'd have concluded the same as you. It is no reflection on you but there is a lot more going down than the "given" explanation.
James,
ReplyDeleteEver heard of The Spicer Commission James?
I find it astonishing that someone would seek to interpose themself between the relationship between a mother and daughter, continuing to discuss a subject with the child which the mother considered inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteThe girl came to me. The mother did not object until after I had already had discussions with her daughter. At 16 I think the daughter was old enough to decide if she wanted to discuss sex with someone other than her mother, in any event.
ReplyDeleteAnd given how the mother was ignorant about the number 1 sex disease prevalent in teens and that she did not want to discuss sex with her daughter anyway[and how it turned out] I think the child's well being overrode the mother's ego.
The example of her 12 yr old sister whom I did not talk to showed the mother's responsibility[this was her younger sister btw whom I did not discuss sex with].
ReplyDeleteWe'll come back to the Spicer Commission, Uber, in a second comment.
ReplyDeleteYou see - I read and address your comments, whereas as you've noted nothing from either my comments above nor form Bob, HGF, Welshcakes or even Martin now.
You've completely ignored the evidence presented there through links, the conclusions on the Dutch situation - not our conclusions but that of women on the spot.
Instead, you've just continued to batter your own idea through and yet, in doing that, you've supported the notion of the State not interfering.
Let me show you.
"By contrast, in my late 30's,I had many sex talks with a teen girl I knew in the same situation.[her Mother[who did not believe in discussing sex with teens & thought me inappropriate,yet herself had never heard of Chlamydia[the highest teen sex disease, which, if undetected, can leave a woman infertile]]."
... and later:
"The girl came to me. The mother did not object until after I had already had discussions with her daughter. At 16 I think the daughter was old enough to decide if she wanted to discuss sex with someone other than her mother, in any event."
As was just said, you were an outlet and the kid DID find an outlet which was comfrotable for her - you. Now, if the Mothers and Daughters programme was still running, she would have had them.
I went to their office in the city I was living in and spoke with them. So yes, I know the principle of not wishing to speak with the parent direct.
But what you've so eloquently laid out - and don't you see this yet, Uber - is the right for the parent or child to choose when, how, and IF such knowledge is given?
On one hand, you say that Sex Education should be imposed on any kid, no matter how young [and look how the State is planning to tell this stuff to 5 year olds!!!!!!!
Look at the German National Health doing the same, even down to urging parents to masturbate their kids [previous post two years ago which had many people up in arms]. State Paedophilia!
On the one hand you support this and on the other, you support the right of that girl to come to you.
In this, Uber, is the difference between State Totalitarianism sticking its nose in where it's neither wanted nor needed and on the otehr, the right of the parent and child to choose.
I'm afraid that many more people today - HGF is an example, support the the right of the parent but would recognize that the child might wish to confide in someone else on some matters.
NOT IMPOSED PAEDOPHILIA WITHIN A SCHOOL WHERE A CHILD IS CAPTIVE AND CANNOT ESCAPE.
That is the crime of teachers today which Welshcakes took issue with.
Spicer Commission
ReplyDeleteLet me cut to the chase - you are no doubt referring me to:
"They are not prepared to use hard drugs, soft drugs or practice unsafe sex to any high degree. An overwhelming 84 percent supported condom use and other education programs for teens and safe sex, motivated out of a very real fear of sexually transmitted diseases."
All we have here is that a government employee has been paid to come into a school and interview kids [and which school could refuse this?] irrepsective of whether parents wanted it our not.
This employee introduced the question of sex under the subterfuge of asking a whole bank of questions on a range of innocuous subjects then dropping in the question of WHEN you have sex ....
Let's pause for a moment. The State employee, unininvited, started quizzing children about sex and suggesting that it was a fait accompli that children have sex.
That was not supported by statistics. There was a growing proportion of kids having it earlier and earlier, due to cultureal factors which were also part of the push of Them worldwide - have you ever stopped and thought why all these things occurred in Canada, America, Britain and the Commonwealth AT THE SAME TIME?
So this employee INTRODUCES the subject, starts talking about safe sex, which is what the teachers have been talking about and therefore them and so they all know to give the POLITICALLY CORRECT answer - yes, we support condom use.
Do you know enough about sex and should there be better sex education?
Oh yes, yes! What kid would not say that in that leading question situation? Come on, be honest and remember your own school days. Some important person comes into the school from outside [to break the monotony] and starts asking questions.
Now, armed with that 84%, the State employee goes away, the results are collated across the country [and don't forget that in those years there was an expansionary movement on women's and kid's rights] and they present the Spicer Commission findings that an overwhlming majority of kids want Sex Education outside of the family.
Ergo we need a STate Sex Ed Program in schools.
Bullsh! Bollocks! Absolute cr-p!
It was a dishonest and illegitimate [going into schools unasked] and drew conculsions which, from the leading wording of the professional poll company, knew the conclusions before they started.
This is EVIL in its purest form because it preys on kids who are no match for the State and for what - to support a STate Social Engineering project.
Look at the German National Health doing the same, even down to urging parents to masturbate their kids [previous post two years ago which had many people up in arms]. State Paedophilia!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I recall that article-with disgust actually.
I tend not to answer other's comments as a standard policy because they are talking to you-not me -and may not appreciate me refuting what they post[which would be pretty arrogant of me]. :)
The main thrust of my point was that many factors contribute to teen sex/pregnancy stats aside from Sex Ed in schools as you seem to imply. I merely pointed out that there were many contributing factors.
Regardless of 'THEM' pushing agendas-and you know me well enough to know I believe in a 'THEM' in all their corruptness - my concern is the benefits vs harm of Sex Ed in schools,not the agendas behind it.
You also know me well enough to know I am more old fashioned than my age would indicate- and I do not for one minute equate Sex Ed and informing children of the pitfalls of sex with encouraging them to engage in it.
One would hope that with responsible education, the child would gain knowledge, confidance and a seal of approval NOT to be pressured into sex before they feel emotionally ready.
In fact, I think the age of consent laws should be raised and are far too low.
I worry that not all kids have someone who they can talk to. And if it is a voluntary 'education', how many will fall through the cracks because they are too embarrassed, it's not 'cool' or think they 'know it all' anyway?
But hey, I also believe First Aid and CPR should be taught in school, too[as well as nutrition] as all these topics are just as vital as the regular curriculum.
No Uber and this is the last time - you have completely missed the point and this is your socialistic stance.
ReplyDeleteYou are ignoring the key factor in this and I went to great pains in the comment on the Spicer Commission to show you this. It is the way the State insinutes itself whichis the issue here.
So it's not "regardless of". That dimisses the key and central issue in this whole thread - the way the State plays on the natural tendencies of parents and kids and their natural divisions to wrest control of matters more properly dealt with on an individual basis by parents.
You are effectively supporting the right of the State to bypass parents. This is VERY dangerous and is the theory behind mentoring.
Did you see the news that the State in the Uk is planning to CCTV and tap families to "ensure they obey the law"? Did you see that yesterday? Do you agree with that?
You don't find it a teensy weensy bit OTT? No? Not at all?
This is the realpolitik of the issue - it is not counselling but AIDING AND ABETTING sexual activity outside of marriage and in young kids of 5 for goodness sake! Doesn't that ring any alarm bells in you at all?
I'll let you have the last word because you like that and then I'll close the thread becasue we've probably gone as far as we can.
Right I'll be honest. I should also add I am not left wing or socialists. I tend to steer a path around what I feel is just and sensible.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely wish our school had offered up a go-to on sex advice. It didn't. My sex life may not have been so distorted and traumatic had that been the case. Instead I learned what I was supposed to do think act and behave in terms of sexual confidence entirely from my peers, magazines and what boys wanted. The thought of talking to my parents would have filled me with utter horror and I would never have discussed any intimate issues with them much less talk of contraception. Meanwhile the pressure I was under was immense. I wanted to wait. I was labelled the weidro and frigid etc and so on. I wound up taking the morning after pill 6 TIMES in my late teens. lying to a doctor to get it, because I honestly believed I was likely to have gotten pregnant through a bit of heavy petting for God's sake.
To add further horror to trauma I was violently raped in 1995. To this day I have NEVER told my parents for fear of the trauma and suffering it would cause them. The point being with this admittance, within close knit caring families you want to protect each other. So sex talk is largely OFF the agenda straight out the gate because of the sensitivity of the subject. Fathers cannot bear to think of daughters having sex. Mothers worry about pregnancy. Meanwhile society leads you by the nose and insists you are not a person until you get laid. Insists you are not a desirable woman unless you are a curvy, up-for-it lasivious 'babe'. And that's before you get on line and realise just what cheap currency sex is these days.
The idea that many parents are even remotely capable of speaking to their kids on the basics in some parts of society is also wholly mistaken.
I am not advocating over the top detailed lessons on sex in school. But the essentials such contraception, responsibility, why and how to wait for when it is right and where to seek further advice if you cannot or won't speak to your parents. If that's socialised so be it.
Instead of the daft anti abortion video we had shoved down our throats at the age of 12 I wish to God we had been gently guided through the pitfalls and shown how unwanted pregancy is NOT the dreamy easy ride so many pretend it is. In the end 8 out of my whole class were pregnant without wanting to be, before they were 20!
That's what no sex ed and moralising does to kids in the modern world.
Okay, James ,but you're not going to like this. Put succinctly, YES I think the effing Gov't should stay out of people's lives far more than they do[and I am sure we don't know 'the half of it'], but so should the church[except those who WANT to voluntarily follow a particular set of moral codes imposed by their religion of faith on ONLY the followers!].
ReplyDeleteSome days it's hard to tell the difference between church and Gov't. :)[ and I trust neither]
No one one in their right mind believes sex should be glorified or promoted to young kiddies,but I think you're making a leap to suggest that is what Sex Ed is[but then again, you are a teacher and maybe it is- and if that IS the case, and I had kids- I'D SUE THE BOARD OF ED]:)
Yes, ultimately it is better for family or trusted friends to teach children about sex,but this is not happening,which gives THEM the stronghold[deliberately set up by THEM ,no doubt], but, at the end of the day, do you not think that children are better off[at an appropriate age] to have some Sex Ed besides the wealth of misinformation taught on the school ground?
Perhaps, there's necessity to monitor/regulate it but I still hold the belief that Sex Education must be taught responsibly at the right developmental stage[maybe with parents' consent to accommodate people who feel as you do ,but are committed to teaching their kids themselves].
I do not think though that sex is a reward for being married or punishment for those who choose to remain single[as we're out of the dark ages now, and sex isn't just for procreation anymore]. :)
Do YOU not believe in the goings on between two consenting adults being no one else's business? Or should the church or Gov't or THEM step in and demand to see marriage licences?
You know I llove ya,but you object to Gov't/Them interference/control but seem to be fine with letting the church have such powers and that's wrong. It still reeks of authoritarianism irrespective of who is weilding the power.
EXCELLENT ALLISON!
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree[but I'd teach them how to put condoms on bananas]
James, you have never been a young virgin girl completely unaware of what to expect, or worrying you may be pregnant without even knowing how one gets pregnant and being made to feel your parent owns your body and exercises rights over it beyond the age that is acceptable.
At 40 odd my mother knew nothing about birth control,or how it worked, or had probably ever seen one, or about the exisatence of sex diseases.
I was raised as if I was in a convent and made to abstain by sheer threat of getting a good hiding.
She thought she was protecting me.NOT ONE IOTA.
And my Mum is an aethiest.
I think a lot of women resent their fertile,young daughters becoming sexually awakened when they, by contrast , are having to deal with their own aging and approaching menopause.
ReplyDeleteAnd they resist accepting their daughters are vibrant, beautiful, sexually desireable women in their own right.
They are the last person capable of giving an objective, guilt/sin free sexual education to their daughters.
I think that sex ed is a good thing but it needs to include the full picture, warts :) and all. Then over to the parents to finish it off.
ReplyDeleteMost children get forced into sex. Force implies no option, like tax, folowing the laws, etc. the sex we talk about is used simply as a currency they can use.
Alison said:
ReplyDeleteI am not advocating over the top detailed lessons on sex in school. But the essentials such contraception, responsibility, why and how to wait for when it is right and where to seek further advice if you cannot or won't speak to your parents. If that's socialised so be it.
Excellent Alison - I'm glad of that and that's what I'm saying - have places for advice and help lines and all that but not effing government programmes teaching 5 year olds to put on condoms.
Not 5 years old,no. Not 10 year olds or maybe even 12 year olds,but not when their 16 and already having sex for 2 yrs. and have a baby.
ReplyDeleteI got my dates mixed up it was 1999not 1995. I'm losing it! But in a way it's a good thing not to dwell too much on the past.
ReplyDeleteI thought you both battled that out brilliantly :)
James that CCTV thing is made up rubbish in the Express. Families can be moved into special units where they’re put under 24 hour surveillance but which does not include CCTV. That’s part of the FIP programme for families that have found themselves excluded from Local Authority housing thanks to Antisocial Behaviour. Full information about the project is available from Government websites accessible to all. You can imagine what horror stories those families are. They are barely even human beings in charge of young kids. SAadly it was too late to stop it going wide on one particular US blog which is a great pity and part of the reason why I hate our desperate tabloids.
Alison, part of both your and Uber's arguments are based on the emotive issue of rape at an early age. Would it surprise you to know that I was also abused by four people as a child? i know it doesn't count against a girl's rape when a boy is raped but still - it wasn't any too good at the time.
ReplyDeleteAll of this is so but it hardly gives carte blanche to a very clever campaign over a few decades for the State to worm its way into taking over programmes which the parent has a right to a say in.
Nowhere did I say that the child does not look for advice elsewhere and a kind teacher is one source. An older friend is another.
But this institutionalized thing - and it IS 5 years old, despite Uber's protestations! It is not directed at 16 to 18 at all. It is a concerted campaign, within schools, to wean kids off their parents - as you've shown already - in an already fragmented and dysfunctional society where the family is the most dysfunctional at all.
The State has made no attempt to repair that but to go in and exploit it for its own interfering, controlling reasons. This is what half of Britain is up in arms about.
This is why all the blogs.
We're talking cross purposes. You're referring to individual cases and making a broad generalization for Sex Education, without thinking through how that is going to be done.
I can tell you how it's going to be done, how it IS being done. I didn't make up that 5 year old age out of the air. The Germans have gone much further down the track and as Uber herself said - it's appalling!
Alison, you really should look at the whole picture before supporting such a thing.
James -
ReplyDeleteYes I have read that you were abused as a child. I felt extremely sad when I read that post. I feel for you. I would never belittle the male experience of rape or suggest they are 'lesser' crimes. If anything I think much much more should be done for male rape victims especially the sensitive concern for children.
I am not speaking about sex education in relation to rape or feel I have an opinion shaped by it. Much of my ignorant sexual experiences came about way before then. I raised that issue specifically and thought I was quite clear why. Maybe not. So Ill repeat - to give an example of how difficult discussing sex ed with parents is. To the extent that I wouldn't ever tell them even now that I had even been raped. That is how difficult any sexual discussions are. It also highlights reactions with fathers and mothers. That was a small point in a much larger set of examples I provided so it is a little unfair to dwell on that alone. I was not using that as an example of sex ed failures as it has nothing to do with sex ed.
I do have experience of primary school edcuation. I was an assistant for a year with a view to teaching full time and my closest friend is a primary school head. I was turned down in the end. It was a crushing blow!
Sex is sex. There is little or nothing the government can do to make it other than what it is. I laid out my main concerns about why schools must take an active part in this education otherwise we may as well remove schools altogether from the picture for everything and have parents made responsible for educating their kids at home for everything.
Yes educating children so young is terrible and robs them of their childhood. But then again so does the internet, magazines on shelves with women with their boobs thrust out at you, asses hanging out in the News of the World, with lapdancing ads now evrywhere in London, kids and 'babe' t shirts for tweens and dolls that speak the same hyper sexual language in their traits not to mention magazines, films, TV etc. Yet somehow because that is commercial it is not viewed as cynically or as sceptically as government. But it is my belief that THIS is chiefly responsible for the sexualising of kids. Not schools. The schools are reacting TO it. We should be active in demanding how they do that, for sure.
To conclude I support sex education within reason. I would support BETTER sex education that I missed out on eg which teaches girls about pitfalls, pressures and pregnancy and guides them through it. That ensures they understand how their bodies work. That really address responsibility with boys and girls. That possibly even addresses respect since boys have so little of it these days. Where to get information. And that they have someone at school or somewhere that they can talk to in confidence.
I support very very basics being taught to kids when they are young when and only if the issue arises and is done in a manner that is appropriate. Not condoms etc. They should be freerer to enjoy being kids first.
BUT - until we get the commercialisation of sex back under control, frankly looking at schools as the main harbinger of sexualisation is wrong headed.
Also my experiences mirror my peers. And as I said no sex ed at our school other than biology basics resulted in significant unwanted pregnancies.
ReplyDeleteLots to read here.
ReplyDeleteSo, meanwhile, I'll ask some questions: in your opinion, has the freedom of the 'sexual revolution' helped us or hindered us?
I think men have always been the same with what they want, it's the way they're wired.
...but now that women are freer, society has less restrictions...are we better or worse for it?
Are our children better for being more sexually active younger; as some would say, oh, that's just the natural way of things?
(I'm not speaking in terms of hidden abuse, people too ashamed to speak of it for fear of societies' retribution...I'm glad for the freedom to speak out against that)
again just some thoughts...it's early over here, not yet awake :)
ReplyDeleteSex Ed in the schools is good for girls who have parents who tell them they can get pregnant if they wear a bikini (true story). I know my mother avoided talking about most of it; I think it was a cousin and good friend that I spoke with.
I don't believe films that are labeled educational, such as 'these are all the positions you can try', etc, are good 'cause it's really just porn they're showing you, and it only encourages the hormones. (first year at uni, a 'progressive' welcome to college, this is what to expect course).
Nor do I believe that unwed pregnant mothers should be sent to the places where the nuns treat them as garbage. There has to be a balance of perspective with regard to the treatment of such situations. Over here, the whole 'baby daddy' thing is out of control, fueled by the state sponsored dole. Shame has all but been removed.
So, sex ed. for the nuts & bolts of the matter-'this is the body, this is how it works' (scientifically presented), and segregated, at an appropriate age (12/13yrs for girls, to help avoid ignorance induced pregnancy). Parents should be encouraged to TALK with their children and the school, if it wants to be involved, can help supply the 'how to start the talk' for parents who have an uptightness about it. (liked the idea of that mother/daughter father/son programme)
I do think the whole respect for self and others should be explored, with what I mentioned earlier. We're higher animals, regardless what the media and the sexual revolutionists are trying to sell us. The whole, 'if it feels good do it' doesn't take into account the consequences of this somewhat selfish mindset.
I mean it feels good to eat that chocolate double sunday brownie supersized...but do we ladies really want the consequences of not being able to fit into our skinny jeans...? :)
James,
ReplyDeleteERROR HERE
My views are not due to rape as I was never raped. MY views are to do with parent's NOT taking resonsibility to ensure their kids are fully aware of what theey need to be to equip them in the decisions that lay ahead in their sexual awakenings.
I can't complain of the ladies keeping their cards close to their chests on this one. Very interesting reading about the other side of the gender line.
ReplyDeleteHGF hit the nail on the head.
ReplyDeleteI would go one step further and discuss changing emotions too that comes with hormones and sex and to DISCOURAGE teens from having sex too young but without mking sex seem sinful or shameful.
It's a tightrope.