Show me a study that says sexual health material has negative neural repercussions on children.
For me It’s not the material itself, it’s the age at which it’s be introduced. I think 12-13 just before high school is much more appropriate.
The material is made to relate to the people it’s being taught to, that’s why it feature children. What exactly to you is appropriate material to you?
What about art? Should people under the age of 18 not be allowed to see Michelangelo’s David? Is that also sexually explicit material? Go to any art museum and you will see plenty of boobs, vaginas and dicks.
[/quote]
“Even you’ve been wondering if 10 years old might be too young for images of masturbating children and an ejaculating erection. But if that’s not explicit and gratuitous material to you, without a study to tell you as much, I can’t help you.”
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So no actual illustrations of female and male genitalia just biology diagrams?[/quote]
There you go.
Ask, who? If you started to explain anal sex in a class room full of kids where I’m from, your job would’ve been the least of your concerns.
Well, no. Contracept them to the gills when they’re kids, they’re still growing up to spit out fatherless children. You’ve taught them how to have non-reproductive oral and anal sex, while throwing contraception at them. You haven’t taught them a thing about will-power, order, structure, and judgment. 30% out-of-wedlock birth rate now for whites. You don’t know even want to know what is for Hispanics and blacks. All the socio-economic negatives follow, and overall fertility rate drops. Demographic doom.
Look at the crap you folks are peddling to 10 year olds, now. Just to get them through school in your secular-progressive culture. Drug them mentally and hormonally, throw copious amounts of latex at them, and teach them anal sex.
Ask, who? If you started to explain anal sex in a class room full of kids where I’m from, your job would’ve been the least of your concerns.[/quote]
If a student asked the teacher about anal sex in front of the class, what should they answer? “No no no we aren’t allowed to discuss that”
I remember in grade 9 health class I asked the teacher if anal sex could work as a way to prevent birth. I’m glad he answered instead of just saying “well I’m not allowed to tell you.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, no. Contracept them to the gills when they’re kids, they’re still growing up to spit out fatherless children. You’ve taught them how to have non-reproductive oral and anal sex, while throwing contraception at them. You haven’t taught them a thing about will-power, order, structure, and judgment. 30% out-of-wedlock birth rate now for whites. You don’t know even want to know what is for Hispanics and blacks. All the socio-economic negatives follow, and overall fertility rate drops. Demographic doom.
[/quote]
That HAS been taught through abstinence-only programs, all of which has been a complete failure.
Abstinence + contraception programs work.
Abstinence only programs do not. Just take a look at teen pregnancy rates of Lubbock, TX where abstinence only is taught.
Not to mention America has a higher teen pregnancy than some other countries we often compare ourselves too. And its not because of the teens sexual activity rates.[/quote]
Here again I differ in opinion to what is bad and what is good. Yall are calling teen pregnancy something that is inherently evil. I disagree. I think people getting pregnant with unwanted children that they cannot or are not prepared to care for is bad, but that is not synonymous with teen pregnancy.
I would not call a married 19 year in a loving relationship and desiring a baby while in a position and maturity to care for it bad. I would call a 40 year old without a stabile economic status getting pregnant with an unwanted baby they canâ??t care for bad.
My grandmother was married and pregnant at 15. And she raised a fine family. Was that bad?[/quote]
I have to chime in here. Your grandmother at 15 was FAR more mature than 15 year olds these days with their ipods and various other creature comforts. That was a completely different time. I think this is an area where the right to life group become very unrealistic.
Yes, it’s safe to say that today and even in the last 20 years that teen pregnancy is a bad thing. There are some exceptions of course, but I have seen so many teens’ lives turn into full dysfunction due to them thinking they were ready and getting pregnant. And you shouldnt need a study to tell you that a non-working and very young mom is a most likely a tax burden as well.
I believe you mean well but to say teen pregnancy is not a bad thing is a sad commentary.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look at the crap you folks are peddling to 10 year olds, now. Just to get them through school in your secular-progressive culture. Drug them mentally and hormonally, throw copious amounts of latex at them, and teach them anal sex.[/quote]
For some reason you think avoiding teaching contraception use will prevent kids from having sex or experimenting with their bodies. Sexuality is innate in us, it is not learned.
By taking away sex education, you are only creating more teen moms and increasing STD rates among teenagers.
If a student asked the teacher about anal sex in front of the class, what should they answer? “No no no we aren’t allowed to discuss that” [/quote]
You go it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, no. Contracept them to the gills when they’re kids, they’re still growing up to spit out fatherless children. You’ve taught them how to have non-reproductive oral and anal sex, while throwing contraception at them. You haven’t taught them a thing about will-power, order, structure, and judgment. 30% out-of-wedlock birth rate now for whites. You don’t know even want to know what is for Hispanics and blacks. All the socio-economic negatives follow, and overall fertility rate drops. Demographic doom.
[/quote]
That HAS been taught through abstinence-only programs[/quote]
No it hasn’t.
It’s been through the transformation of society into sex-addicted and irresponsible adults who peddle sex in the mainstream media/entertainment like it was Pepsi-cola. You’re not teaching healthy sex. You’re drugging/latexing kids through high school until they spit out a fatherless child in their 20’s.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look at the crap you folks are peddling to 10 year olds, now. Just to get them through school in your secular-progressive culture. Drug them mentally and hormonally, throw copious amounts of latex at them, and teach them anal sex.[/quote]
For some reason you think avoiding teaching contraception use will prevent kids from having sex or experimenting with their bodies. Sexuality is innate in us, it is not learned.
By taking away sex education, you are only creating more teen moms and increasing STD rates among teenagers.[/quote]
Sexual parameters are learned. Skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birth rates taking off from the sexual revolution of the '60s make that crystal clear.
It’s been through transformation of society into sex-addicted and irresponsible adults who peddle sex in the mainstream media/entertainment like it was Pepsi-cola. You’re not teaching healthy sex. You’re drugging/latexing kids through high school until they spit out a fatherless child in their 20’s.[/quote]
Abstinence-only sex education teaches children to abstain from sex as the sole method of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In the U.S., States may apply for federal funding of abstinence-only sex education programs. To be eligible for funding programs must satisfy requirements given under the Social Security Act:[3]
(2) For purposes of this section, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program whichâ??
(A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
(C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
(D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the childâ??s parents, and society;
(G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
(H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look at the crap you folks are peddling to 10 year olds, now. Just to get them through school in your secular-progressive culture. Drug them mentally and hormonally, throw copious amounts of latex at them, and teach them anal sex.[/quote]
For some reason you think avoiding teaching contraception use will prevent kids from having sex or experimenting with their bodies. Sexuality is innate in us, it is not learned.
By taking away sex education, you are only creating more teen moms and increasing STD rates among teenagers.[/quote]
Sexual parameters are learned. Skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birth rates taking off from the sexual revolution of the '60s make that crystal clear.[/quote]
That doesn’t mean you can form a causal link to sex education