6th graders have sex in class w/teacher present

[Spongiform]

Oh man, it's like two dogs chasing each other's tails.

[spikegirl7]

abstinence is.... ok, let me collect my thoughts.

I don't believe that "no sex until marriage" is a practical. It's great if that's what the person wants, but ...

I don't believe that a 12 year old is ready for sex. Sex is (should be) a connection between two people who love each other and respect each other. I think that waiting until you're older is the way to go. I think that waiting until you find that special person is what should be done. Perhaps you won't get married to that person, perhaps you will.

Children should be taught about sex, but not by teachers at a school. Their parents should teach them about sex, and how special it is. Sex is a subject that cannot be well taught at a school. Schools (IMHO) CAN teach sex-ed, but I don't want that abstinence-only class they push on kids. That is a personal decision and although I'd want my kids to wait until they were older, and were ready, I don't want them told that abstinence is the only path.

To be abstinent or not is a very personal decision. Some people believe that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's not for everyone.

Also, although I know people who got pregnant, or who got STDs, 99% of those were people who weren't practicing safe sex. I play the odds, I say 99% is a good chance right there.

In fact, the only person I have known (the 1%) got pregnant while she was on the pill, but something happened and the baby died during the first trimester.

[Blaze]

That's a pretty apt analogy. "I have a way yours isn't right!" "Yeah, well I have a way YOURS isn't right."

Semantics never helped ANYONE.

[StruckingFuggle]

From the standpoint of education, we shouldn't be crippling and/or endangering all kids, merely becomes some people think that it's something they shouldn't be taught ... yes, its all well and good that you believe in abstinence and all that, but why should you make it so that the choice for all children is either be taught by your parents (again, many of whom don't do it, and many of those who do, do it poorly), be abstinent, or be imperiled through ignorance?

Sure, a lot of it comes down to a difference in beliefs. But one is founded in reality, the other in moralism, and when it comes to action, one course acknowledges a (maybe sad) fact and does something about it to make kids safer (by providing education) - the other, in not wanting to provide an education or deal with the fact, leaves ignorance in the air in a place where what people don't know, or think they know but know wrongly, could and probably would, hurt them?

What makes not teaching sex ed because you think they shouldn't need it, while ignoring that, hey, a bunch of kids WILL have sex... better than teaching them that, "hey, you probably shouldn't, but if you're going to anyway, and for those of you that are (and don't want to make the PERSONAL CHOICE to be abstinent, which by the way as long as you stick to it, will at least keep you out of harms way), here's how you don't totally screw the pooch while screwing each other"?

What part of that is a good idea?

[JudgeMental]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="722973"]

I think the consensus is that abstinence is 100% effective and has a 0% failure rate

only if you very, very carefully define "effective" and "failure rate", and don't involve 'programs promoting abstinence' in the statistics. Plus, abstinence as a means of safe sex is kind of like not driving as a means of avoiding getting into a wreck.

Which would be a much more apt analogy to what I said previously than yours about speeding.[/quote]

Fuggle, I normally disagree with what you have to say, but I normally think that what you say is the result of thought. This, however, makes me want to smack you.

Abstinence is abstinence. It is neither a course lecture or a class. You either are abstinent, or you're not. If you are abstinent, you will not get pregnent/get somebody else pregnant, and neither will you get STD's.

If you're talking about classes promoting abstinence, or trying to maintain abstinence, that's more difficult, naturally. Nobody I know with two braincells to rub together deny that.

When you're trying to think about abstinence and abstinence programs, remember that they are two different things. Like teaching safe sex and practicing safe sex. Teach safe sex, and not everybody will follow it, just as teaching abstinence would do. PRACTICE safe sex, and accidents will happen; condoms break, manufacturing flaws, etc. Practice abstinence, and hey, 0% chance of accident. Note, when I say practice, I AM assuming an ideal, 100% compliance.

Now, that brings me to a second point.

Comparing sex and driving. Does anybody need to have sex? Be realistic. Is it possible to have a close relationship, and not have sex?

What about driving? Is it possible to live without having to drive? For some people, yes; I have a few friends who don't drive due to safety and financial reasons. But for people like me, who live in the middle of nowhere, driving is a necessity.

Risk for a necessity is one thing. Risk for pleasure, that's another.

Fuggle, why are you implying that morality and reality are divorced? What I've observed indicates to me that morality acts as an instruction manual of sorts to the reality of how humans work.

I've avoided talking about marriage explicitly due to one reason; marriage is not respected any more. If marriage were truly about a life-long devotion, a promise that would last a lifetime, then yes, there would be compelling reason (in my mind) to wait to have sex until marriage. That's what marriage is supposed to be about. A legal promise if not to the government then under God. It is SUPPOSED to provide stability to outlast spats and feuds that every relationship has. Nowadays, that's a true rarity.

I agree that an education is a good thing. But I believe it is completely, totally foolish to think that an education program can really do much by itself to impact things significantly. Due to teenage hormones, all other things being neutral then the BEST I think sex-ed can do is be neutral itself. I do not honestly think it has THAT significant of an impact on sexual practices one way or another. I could be wrong there, I've not checked stats or anything.

Now Wocket...

[quote="wocket";p="722933"]
Some people think never getting married is common sense (don't want to deal with divorce? Don't deal with marriage to begin with!)[/quote]

Indeed, that is common sense, if you don't want to RISK divorce. Your statement implies that divorce is some kind of certainty in each relationship though. I have already addressed this somewhat.

This is common sense only in that the person who chooses this course just doesn't want to take the risk. Same as any relationship; don't want to risk hurt or abandonment, don't have friends.

Some people think guarding yourself so you never fall in love is common sense.

Kinda already talked about that above. Again, it's a conclusion based on weighing risks. If the risk is too much, then duh, avoid 'love' like the plague.

Some people think never having children is common sense.

Those people confuse me.

Some people think giving yourself completely over to another human being in one of the greatest acts of intimacy, whether you're married to that person or not, is common sense.

I think blaze already said something about that...

But that isn't actually common sense; it's just a natural logical progression if you recognize the nature of sex. There ARE other ways of giving yourself over to somebody intimately without sex; sex is just the most enjoyable way of doing it.

Should we ship these people off to nunneries? NO. We should let them have their differing opinions and Jesus Christ on a cracker we should support them because they likely have some very good reasons for their views.

I don't understand this. You're bringing up a non-issue; I don't think anything should be "done" to people who disagree with me.

Common sense is knowing that letting a baby play with a razor blade is a very bad idea.

I think we can all agree on that one too

Common sense is not holding off on sex until marriage if you never want to get married or you can't get married or you never want to give yourself up emotionally but still want to have a good time.

Lost me again. Sex is emotional. I have talked to a lot of people about it, and most of them were co-workers and students raised far differently from me. A few people said sex for them wasn't. They eventually changed their minds. Every one of them. And if sex WASN'T emotional, then why were you just saying that sex is a good way to give yourself over completely to somebody else?

Again, is sex a necessity to have a close, intimate relationship? I HOPE not; I have some very close, intimate with guy friends, and that's going directions I don't care to go!

I want it clear that I am not against teaching safe sex. I just think it's ineffective in the big picture, kind of a feel-good patch to fix a problem that's much more systemic.

[RadicalDreamer]

I want it clear that I am not against teaching safe sex. I just think it's ineffective in the big picture, kind of a feel-good patch to fix a problem that's much more systemic.

I agree with your last post whole-heartedly. However, the same can be said about preaching abstinence.

Again, is sex a necessity to have a close, intimate relationship? I HOPE not; I have some very close, intimate with guy friends, and that's going directions I don't care to go!

It's only gay if the balls touch.

[spikegirl7]

i think we can all see that JudgeMental chose abstinance, and for you, that works. That what you chose and god speed on you for it. That is a very personal decision and no one can make that for you. However there are some points that i don't agree with you.

You say that sex is not like driving. I disagree, sex is like driving. You don't NEED to drive, there are always alternatives. I know, if you live in a rural area it's hard, but there are ALWAYS ways to avoid getting behind the wheel of a car. However life might be a lot easier and more enjoyable if you do drive. Do you NEED to have sex? No, you don't, but it means that you're depriving your body of something that is good for it and something that it craves, along with stopping yourself from a lot of relationships and a lot of possibilities therein.

You believe that abstinence is common sense. I don't. Both me and my partner (monogomous relationship) have been tested and are clean, so there's no risk of STDs. Plus sex has a lot of physiological benefits (there was a thread on this somewhere) that really do help. Plus (this might gross out some of you guys) during the time of month before my period when i'm cramping up and in pain sex releases endorphins that kill the pain and make me less bitchy and keep me from crying on the floor. So for me it's common sense to have sex.

[Deacon]

[quote="spikegirl7";p="723060"]Both me and my partner (monogomous relationship) have been tested and are clean, so there's no risk of STDs.[/quote]
No offense, but that's predicated on your knight in shining armor reversing his casual attitudes toward sex now that he's in a relationship with you.

[JudgeMental]

[quote="RadicalDreamer";p="723050"]

I want it clear that I am not against teaching safe sex. I just think it's ineffective in the big picture, kind of a feel-good patch to fix a problem that's much more systemic.

I agree with your last post whole-heartedly. However, the same can be said about preaching abstinence.
[/quote]

Yes. But when I said that, I was referring to sex-ed classes, not safe sex/abstinence in general.

spikegirl, TRY living in the country without needing to drive, while maintaining ANY standard of living. I am applying some common sense here, I mean you don't NEED to drive (the Amish do it, after all) but there is a practical reason behind it. Not so much for sex.

You are also engaging is sex in a manner closer to which it was intended. If there was a "degree" of how inappropriate extra-marital sex was, you're probably at the lower end. But you're still ignoring the emotional aspect. I don't know much about your life, but if you've not really known anybody who went through it, trust me; sex in a relationship that goes bad, ESPECIALLY if that relationship looks like it will last, is really, really bad.

Sex does also have extra benefits, true. You're fortunate that you can currently enjoy them without the negative aspects affecting you right now.

Minor rant: relativistic attitudes (for you, that works)

[hypnochan]

when I read this the first thing that popped into my head was "1984"

Apparently, it's a Brave New World...


Still... ew. 12 and 13? Ugh, boys had cooties until I was 14, and even then I kept my clothes on.

[StruckingFuggle]

How do you get from Brave New World to 1984? o.O

[hypnochan]

That's just how incredibly screwy my mind works. I'm impressed I didn't about something completely random... like, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or something.

[spikegirl7]

it's more Brave New World than 1984, 'cause if i remember right sex was banned in 1984 and it was promoted to young people in Brave New World.

And it's cool, a lot of brains do that.

and i didn't know 12 year old kids COULD have sex.

[StruckingFuggle]

Aha, gotcha. I can see it, its just ... yeah. The two are vastly different, but I do see the link that they're both dystopias, but ... gotcha.

[hypnochan]

S'okay, I don't even get how my thought process works - when it does.

I do garuntee it'll be interesting, or well, entertaining at least. If not confusing.


... I'm gonna hush up now and get ready to leave work ^^;