Condoms for teen agers

[thir]

"Called the Hotshot, the condom has been produced after government research showed 12 to14-year-olds did not use sufficient protection when having sex."

This article from the 3rd of March concerns launching condomes for 12-14 year old boys in Switzerland:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7361181/Extra-small-condoms-for-12-year-old-boys-go-on-sale-in-Switzerland.html


"Seriously? I thought. Condoms for kids?"

A comment to above article.

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/extra-small-condoms-for-12-year-olds-being-sold-in-switzerland/

What say ye? Should 12-14 year old boys have condoms?

[DuncanONeil]

No!


"called the hotshot, the condom has been produced after government research showed 12 to14-year-olds did not use sufficient protection when having sex."

this article from the 3rd of march concerns launching condomes for 12-14 year old boys in switzerland:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7361181/extra-small-condoms-for-12-year-old-boys-go-on-sale-in-switzerland.html


"seriously? I thought. Condoms for kids?"

a comment to above article.

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/extra-small-condoms-for-12-year-olds-being-sold-in-switzerland/

what say ye? Should 12-14 year old boys have condoms?

[oww-that-hurt]

Let's see.... as a teenager in the 60's I had condom access.

Never got any friendly ladies pregnant, never got any STD's.

I feel that if a male is producing sperm, then he BETTER be doing something to slow down the little buggers. Don't rely on the female all the time.

In this AIDS and fellow-bugs society it behooves every male to use whatever protection is available. Remember the old saying "VD travels in the best circles"?

Ah, heck. Forget it. All the uppity-uppity high-moral folks can go stick their head in the sand and pretend "Johnny" will just say no to sex. Yeah, right. That's how I got grand-children!

The reply to the article brought out some good points. Maybe the parents and school systems here in the U.S. should step back and rethink their Victorian messed up minds and do serious sex education.

[DuncanONeil]

Here's an idea. Why make the kids go to school! They know what they want to do so let them!


Let's see.... as a teenager in the 60's I had condom access.

Never got any friendly ladies pregnant, never got any STD's.

I feel that if a male is producing sperm, then he BETTER be doing something to slow down the little buggers. Don't rely on the female all the time.

In this AIDS and fellow-bugs society it behooves every male to use whatever protection is available. Remember the old saying "VD travels in the best circles"?

Ah, heck. Forget it. All the uppity-uppity high-moral folks can go stick their head in the sand and pretend "Johnny" will just say no to sex. Yeah, right. That's how I got grand-children!

The reply to the article brought out some good points. Maybe the parents and school systems here in the U.S. should step back and rethink their Victorian messed up minds and do serious sex education.

[TantricSoul]

Absolutely they should ... anyone who is sexually active should have a thorough education and the proper means to protect themselves and others.

That includes 12 -14yr old boys ... and girls.

It loooooong past time to look past our conditioned morality issues ... and face what is real. To stop placing these preteens in a manufactured dilemma. Time to face that "just say no" doesn't work unless they have the education and understanding of why it might be the right choice for them to say no.

Seriously ... "because it's the right thing to do" or "you'll go to hell for sinning" or "wait for marriage" just doesn't hold up well against all those endorphins, pheromones and other biological intensities that people of that age are dealing with.

However on the bright side of abstinence only education ... apparently females who have only this kind of sex education are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex! Yay ... good job moral majority. lmao.
Respectfully,
TS

[denuseri]

Just when I thought it was safe to enter a thread where no one would try to make it personal,,,looks up and rolls my eyes.

I say YES they should have access to condoms and birth control, boy, girl, hermaphrodite it doesnt matter.

Teach them to not have sex at that age all you wish, if they want they will find a way to do it anyway. They may as well know how to be safe.

[TantricSoul]

:) lets stay on topic here ok folks? (I am referring to the removed post not yours denu)
Thank you very much.
Respectfully,
TS

[Thorne]

While it's true that 12-14 is far too young for kids to be having sex, it's undeniable that they are anyway. Trying to hold them back, keeping them uneducated, only hurts them in the long run. If they're going to have sex anyway, better by far that they're prepared and knowledgeable. So yes, provide condoms to kids (boys AND girls) and allow doctors to prescribe birth control medications to sexually active girls.

And most important of all, GOOD, intelligent sex education classes, for all kids. Take away some of the mystery and excitement, and you take away some of the causes of early sex in the first place. Keeping kids ignorant and unable to obtain birth control only makes for more teenage pregnancies and transmission of STD's.

[Ozme52]

(Didn't see the flames as they were removed long before I got here. So nothing said here is relevent to what may or may not have gone before...)

I heartily approve of sex education at a young age, curiosity appeased is activity deferred. It was true for me for alchohol, for tobacco, and possibly for sex (who knows how much earlier I would have started... but none-the-less, I did start early.)

And yes, that included condoms. I'd rather see a little youthful promiscurity than a little too youthful parenting.

And as to whether it's appropriate at that age... that's a societal convention. There was a time that 13 year olds were expected to make their own way in life, adding to the financial potential of the family... and adding to the family through marriage and child rearing.

Even in this country, just a few centuries ago, most "children" were fully contributing adults, already out of school and working full time by their teens.

So absolutely... if we wish to prolong their "childhood" and afford them the opportunities modern life delivers... rather than pretending that sexual activity doesn't start at puberty, educate... we should educate them and help protect them.

One, non-parent, opinion. I'd like to think, as my parents did, that I would have this opinion regardless.

[Thorne]

One, non-parent, opinion. I'd like to think, as my parents did, that I would have this opinion regardless.

I am a parent, Oz. Two boys, both grown now. I still get a chuckle remembering the time my wife found a condom in my oldest son's pocket while doing his laundry. She was furious! Wanted to wring his neck. I asked her, "Would you be happier if he was screwing around without condoms?" That quieted her down. A little!

Don't know how I would have reacted if I'd had daughters, though. <shudder>

[thir]

:) lets stay on topic here ok folks? (I am referring to the removed post not yours denu)
Thank you very much.
Respectfully,
TS

Did not see the removed post either, but it seems to me people were before and are now.

[thir]

And as to whether it's appropriate at that age... that's a societal convention. There was a time that 13 year olds were expected to make their own way in life, adding to the financial potential of the family... and adding to the family through marriage and child rearing.



This is a good point. Actually the concept of 'children' being a seperate categoy of people did not come about until about 18th or 19th century.
Leo9 reminds me that in Shakespears 'Romeo and Juliet' Romeo was 15 and Juliet 13 and that was not considered anything speciel by his audience. Romeo and Juliet were old enough to marry, and Romeo to carry a sword and use it.

In the 12th century daughters of the nobility were often married off at 13-14 years old.

A close relative of mine had her debut at 12, I was a late bloomer at 18 though I made up for lost time ;-)

Laws recognize children as 'children' until a certain age, but biology has its own laws regardless. I must agree with the people who thinks that information and acces to condomes are a must.

[DuncanONeil]

Endorphins rule!?!?!
Then there is no such thing as morality?
Morality is like bravery, making the hard choices.
Besides in times past copius means of birth control was not available and yet there was not as many unwed births as now. And that does not even consider the number of pregnancies terminated.


Absolutely they should ... anyone who is sexually active should have a thorough education and the proper means to protect themselves and others.

That includes 12 -14yr old boys ... and girls.

It loooooong past time to look past our conditioned morality issues ... and face what is real. To stop placing these preteens in a manufactured dilemma. Time to face that "just say no" doesn't work unless they have the education and understanding of why it might be the right choice for them to say no.

Seriously ... "because it's the right thing to do" or "you'll go to hell for sinning" or "wait for marriage" just doesn't hold up well against all those endorphins, pheromones and other biological intensities that people of that age are dealing with.

However on the bright side of abstinence only education ... apparently females who have only this kind of sex education are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex! Yay ... good job moral majority. lmao.
Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

Don't you think that the fact that there are no consequences for their actions has a large bearing on the choices they make.

In a large part your post also reads as if kids have always been engaging in sex at the first opportunity. Yes I know a percentage do but that is not how your post reads.

All kids are going to have sex. At first opportunity. So let's not teach them discipline, just let them do whatever they want whenever. We will find a way to fix it so it does not present adverse consequences.

In large part that seems like teaching that there are no rules of any kind!!


Just when I thought it was safe to enter a thread where no one would try to make it personal,,,looks up and rolls my eyes.

I say YES they should have access to condoms and birth control, boy, girl, hermaphrodite it doesnt matter.

Teach them to not have sex at that age all you wish, if they want they will find a way to do it anyway. They may as well know how to be safe.

[DuncanONeil]

I think there is something more to it than just "mystery & excitement"
No matter how you think about it the species has divisions. Some are meaningless. But perhaps the greatest division is, although somewhat arbitrary, child and adult. Activities routine and normal for the adult are restricted from the child. Unless one wishes to say that no human activity is to be denied the child. Which would include sex, drugs, war, work, or any other number of things. Carried to that extreme, and many today bemoan the loss of childhood, means we will not have children. Merely little adults, which is how some actually refer to children already!

Just a few thoughts!


While it's true that 12-14 is far too young for kids to be having sex, it's undeniable that they are anyway. Trying to hold them back, keeping them uneducated, only hurts them in the long run. If they're going to have sex anyway, better by far that they're prepared and knowledgeable. So yes, provide condoms to kids (boys AND girls) and allow doctors to prescribe birth control medications to sexually active girls.

And most important of all, GOOD, intelligent sex education classes, for all kids. Take away some of the mystery and excitement, and you take away some of the causes of early sex in the first place. Keeping kids ignorant and unable to obtain birth control only makes for more teenage pregnancies and transmission of STD's.

[DuncanONeil]

"Even in this country, just a few centuries ago, most "children" were fully contributing adults, already out of school and working full time by their teens." (Ozme52)

Just a small little question.
Does anyone know why school is out for summer and returns in the fall?

[leo9]

In terms of actual penetrative sex I was a later starter than thir, but I had been playing sexual games of stripping and genital manipulation (usually also involving bondage and play-torture, but that's another thread) with siblings and friends from about age 11. I have no evidence that this is unusual.

The fact that none of us considered including penile penetration in our games might have been influenced by the fact that we had been told what it involved, and could share an unspoken concensus that it was too serious for games, just as we wouldn't include a real knife in play-fights.

But from age 13 I was certainly ready to fantasise about it, and if I'd been lucky enough to have found a like minded partner I'd have been keen to try it for real. Again, I've no
reason to think this is unusual.

[DuncanONeil]

I have one of each! Made every effort to deal with them as thinking entities. My daughter heard a lot of the traditional daddy threats about how their boyfriends would be treated. My favorite being a spiked baseball bat. But in reality her friendships were treated as just that. With attendant curfews and analysis as needed, same for my son.
After having made a multi-year attempt to teach values, responsibility, and yes, morals (which involve more than sex) the only option left when those come into play is to provide guidance, when required.
Being a parent is one of the hardest jobs in the world. Even so one can not just abdicate, or allow others to substitute for you. Remember if you want a job done correct ....


I am a parent, Oz. Two boys, both grown now. I still get a chuckle remembering the time my wife found a condom in my oldest son's pocket while doing his laundry. She was furious! Wanted to wring his neck. I asked her, "Would you be happier if he was screwing around without condoms?" That quieted her down. A little!

Don't know how I would have reacted if I'd had daughters, though. <shudder>

[Thorne]

I think there is something more to it than just "mystery & excitement"
No matter how you think about it the species has divisions. Some are meaningless. But perhaps the greatest division is, although somewhat arbitrary, child and adult. Activities routine and normal for the adult are restricted from the child. Unless one wishes to say that no human activity is to be denied the child. Which would include sex, drugs, war, work, or any other number of things. Carried to that extreme, and many today bemoan the loss of childhood, means we will not have children. Merely little adults, which is how some actually refer to children already!

Just a few thoughts!

I think you're reading too much into my statement, Duncan. I'm not saying we should unilaterally permit rampant sexual orgies among teenagers. I'm saying educate them, responsibly not with fairy tales, to insure they know the problems and responsibilities of their actions. And if they DO become active, make sure they have access to condoms and birth control, where necessary, to insure they violently thrust into the world of adulthood by becoming parents while they are still, by our culture's standards, children.

As for when children should be treated as adults, this can vary from person to person and from activity to activity. Obviously nature turns children into fully functioning adults, sexually, at puberty. Emotionally they may not be ready, but this is a product of culture more than nature. If they were taught from early childhood that they would become adults at a certain age they would be more emotionally able to handle it.

As for drugs and alcohol, obviously no one is adult enough to handle putting toxins into their system, but it has been shown that most people under the age of about 19 or 20 are unable to properly deal with the effects of alcohol, biologically speaking, than older people can. Younger children can be seriously damaged by even small amounts of alcohol in their systems. So our culture has decided that it's better to restrict alcohol to those who are old enough to metabolize it more readily, which we have defined legally as 21 years old.

As for war, well, children have been going to war almost as long as men have. Again, puberty seemed to be the point at which a boy became a man, with all the responsibilities that implied, including going to war. Our culture has assigned the age of 18 to determine if a man is able to be sent to war, but it is arbitrary at best. Some might be mature enough to handle it at a younger age, some might never be mature enough. (Aside, sort of: I was intrigued, and pleased, when watching "Master and Commander" by their somewhat historically accurate portrayal of what we would consider children as crew members of a ship of war. This was quite common throughout most of our history. Not surprisingly, though, they chose to ignore the sexual side of this in the movie.)

So yes, Duncan, sometimes we need to treat our children as little adults. Make them aware of the problems which can occur when engaging in sexual activities, emotional and physical. Teach them the reasons they are feeling what they are feeling, and how to control those feelings. Let them know that masturbation, far from being the dirty, filthy habit that some would procaim, is actually a healthy activity, albeit one which should be practiced in private and discretely (kinks aside, of course). Teach them that they should feel free to say no if they don't think they are ready, and that they shouldn't allow themselves to be pressured into sex. But sooner or later some kids are going to experiment. It's what kids do. It's how they learn how to be adults. Regardless of what morality you try to teach them, some kids are going to want to make their own rules. All you can do then is try to steer them in the way you think is right and hope they don't fuck up their lives while doing it.

[leo9]

No matter how you think about it the species has divisions. Some are meaningless. But perhaps the greatest division is, although somewhat arbitrary, child and adult. Activities routine and normal for the adult are restricted from the child. Unless one wishes to say that no human activity is to be denied the child. Which would include sex, drugs, war, work, or any other number of things. Carried to that extreme, and many today bemoan the loss of childhood, means we will not have children. Merely little adults, which is how some actually refer to children already!


As two other contributors have pointed out, historically speaking, childhood is one of those meaningless divisions you mention. Obviously, younger people are physically unable to do some things, but up till the last few centuries the rule for everything was that when they're big enough they're old enough.

In the 10th Century "Njal's Saga" (which might be called the first recorded celebrity biography) the hero at age 12 asks his father to take him along to a feast, and is told that he can't come because he gets too violent when he's drunk. So he steals a cart-horse and comes anyway, gets into a fight and kills another boy. All this is reported as the story of a berserker who started young, but with no idea that there was anything intrinsically strange about such behaviour in a "child". Compare with a couple of recent cases of murders by preteens in the UK, where the media response has been not only a perfectly reasonable outrage at the details of the killings, but also an almost superstitious horror as if there were something monstrously unnatural about the perpetrators, purely on account of their age.

The reason for the invention of childhood, in the opinion of historians, was firstly the need for a higher level of general education in more technically advanced societies. It therefore became necessary to class people as schoolchildren who had previously been classed as young adults. This became complicated by the Victorian obsession with innocence, narrowly defined as ignorance of sex; moralists took the completely artificial redefinition of childhood as real, and equated teenage sex with child abuse. The resulting conventions were so hammered into Western society that when Europeans encountered cultures where sex still started at puberty, they took it as evidence of the savages' immorality and set out to save them by teaching their children shame.

There are areas where it is a genuine advance of civilisation to restrict young people's access to adult practices: young Njal's drunken brawls were the mark of a barbaric culture. But if we are going to debate the question of chidren's sexual behaviour, it must be on the basis of known realities of physical and mental health and the welfare of society, not an undiscussed assumption that some things are just wrong because it's always been so.

[Thorne]

Just a small little question.
Does anyone know why school is out for summer and returns in the fall?

If I remember my history, it was because when the mandatory school laws were enacted it was understood that farm children were needed on the farm. There was far too much work to do to allow them to "fool around with education".

[leo9]

So our culture has decided that it's better to restrict alcohol to those who are old enough to metabolize it more readily, which we have defined legally as 21 years old.


Which shows another reason this distinction is arbitrary. Your "we" is the USA: here in the UK that limit is set as 18, and in other countries lower still. Similarly, there is no global agreement, even within the Western world, on the legal age for sex. In my and thir's countries sex is legal at 16, and sex between younger teens (as illustrated by the original article) is officially ignored unless older people are involved or there is evidence of coercion or bullying. So far, this has not led to the fall of civilisation.

[Thorne]

I have one of each! Made every effort to deal with them as thinking entities. My daughter heard a lot of the traditional daddy threats about how their boyfriends would be treated. My favorite being a spiked baseball bat. But in reality her friendships were treated as just that. With attendant curfews and analysis as needed, same for my son.
After having made a multi-year attempt to teach values, responsibility, and yes, morals (which involve more than sex) the only option left when those come into play is to provide guidance, when required.
Being a parent is one of the hardest jobs in the world. Even so one can not just abdicate, or allow others to substitute for you. Remember if you want a job done correct ....

Yeah, the spiked baseball bat sounds like what I would be thinking about. But it's good to hear that you were treating your children as young adults, not as chidren. You were teaching them what they needed to know as they moved into the adult world. As you say, it is a very hard job indeed, one which seemingly will never end.

And I, for one, am not saying one should abdicate that responsibility. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Some things, such as biology and psychology, might be better taught in schools, with qualified teachers who know more about the subjects than I do. That doesn't mean you can just ignore the topic, though. There is still much about it that must be taught at home. Morality being perhaps the most important. But there has to be a certain amount of common sense and understanding mixed in with that morality. Trying to teach your kids that something is filthy and sinful and disgusting one day but perfectly fine once you sign that marriage certificate is just confusing the issues. Sure, you can try to impress upon them that they'll be happier if they wait, but at the same time they are seeing all around them signs that sexual activity among loving couples can be just as rewarding without marriage.

Perhaps your kids didn't experiment with sex, or drugs, or alcohol. But how can you be sure? And if they were sexually active, what could you have done about it except try to understand them? Would you have locked your daughter away in the basement and found a suitable mate for her, as some cultures might?

No, it's far better to teach your kids what they NEED to know, not hide it from them until you think they're old enough.

[DuncanONeil]

My responsibility is to teach my kids values, morals, and about making choices. The technical stuff is what I hire teachers for.
When our kids are young we teach them that cigarettes are nasty and disgusting?
If we do not instill them with values and a sense of morality how can we expect them to make the hard choices? The clerk gave me too much change! What oh what do I do??

That "loving couple" part is very important! Nor is it anywhere near what the subject of this thread is asking about!


Yeah, the spiked baseball bat sounds like what I would be thinking about. But it's good to hear that you were treating your children as young adults, not as chidren. You were teaching them what they needed to know as they moved into the adult world. As you say, it is a very hard job indeed, one which seemingly will never end.

And I, for one, am not saying one should abdicate that responsibility. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. Some things, such as biology and psychology, might be better taught in schools, with qualified teachers who know more about the subjects than I do. That doesn't mean you can just ignore the topic, though. There is still much about it that must be taught at home. Morality being perhaps the most important. But there has to be a certain amount of common sense and understanding mixed in with that morality. Trying to teach your kids that something is filthy and sinful and disgusting one day but perfectly fine once you sign that marriage certificate is just confusing the issues. Sure, you can try to impress upon them that they'll be happier if they wait, but at the same time they are seeing all around them signs that sexual activity among loving couples can be just as rewarding without marriage.

Perhaps your kids didn't experiment with sex, or drugs, or alcohol. But how can you be sure? And if they were sexually active, what could you have done about it except try to understand them? Would you have locked your daughter away in the basement and found a suitable mate for her, as some cultures might?

No, it's far better to teach your kids what they NEED to know, not hide it from them until you think they're old enough.

[thir]

Activities routine and normal for the adult are restricted from the child. Unless one wishes to say that no human activity is to be denied the child. Which would include sex, drugs, war, work, or any other number of things. Carried to that extreme, and many today bemoan the loss of childhood, means we will not have children. Merely little adults, which is how some actually refer to children already!

Just a few thoughts!

The sad and bad reality is that in very many places in the world, this is exactly what happens. Children soldiers, children addicts, children prostitutes, children workers.

Now, I think most would agree that that is not what we want for our children, or any children, and that the protection from working exploitation and so on is a good thing indeed. But there is such a thing as going overboard with it, and seeing children as sort 'cut out of' the world we all live in, as little blank slates just waiting for us to write on, and nothing to do with the 'real' world.

Children are personalities with opinions, and they share our world for better or worse. We cannot protect them from it, nor in some cases should we, meaning they must learn the world, in as protected ways as can be managed, but they must not be kept apart from it or be seen as apart from it.

[Thorne]

My responsibility is to teach my kids values, morals, and about making choices.
Yes it is. YOUR values, YOUR morals, and YOUR choices. But you have to understand that some of those values, morals and choices are not universal. Some are cultural, some are religious, some are inherent. And unless you terrorize your kids into following your ways, chances are that somewhere along the line they are going to experiment with someone else's values, morals and choices.


[/B][/COLOR]The technical stuff is what I hire teachers for.[/B][/COLOR]
Then make sure that your shool district, or church leaders, or political leaders, don't restrict the "technical stuff" that the teachers need to teach. It's only biology, after all.


[/B][/COLOR]When our kids are young we teach them that cigarettes are nasty and disgusting?[/B][/COLOR]
No we teach them that they are unhealthy, especially for children, just like alcohol. "Nasty" and "disgusting" are subjective terms. You may think that broccoli tastes good and is good for you. I think it's "nasty". Who's right?

[DuncanONeil]

The sad and bad reality is that in very many places in the world, this is exactly what happens. Children soldiers, children addicts, children prostitutes, children workers.


Now, I think most would agree that that is not what we want for our children, or any children, and that the protection from working exploitation and so on is a good thing indeed. But there is such a thing as going overboard with it, and seeing children as sort 'cut out of' the world we all live in, as little blank slates just waiting for us to write on, and nothing to do with the 'real' world.

In a manner of speaking they are blank slates. Else why would they need to be taught values or morals?
Never intended to suggest they be " 'cut out of' the world". But they do need to be taught about the world.
As far as "waiting to write on". That is exactly what the schools are doing. Unfortunately much of what they are writing is not appropriate!


Children are personalities with opinions, and they share our world for better or worse. We cannot protect them from it, nor in some cases should we, meaning they must learn the world, in as protected ways as can be managed, but they must not be kept apart from it or be seen as apart from it.

Personalities, yes! But their "opinions require development. Learning the world is a dual task job, that of their parents and the schools. Many parents abdicate to the schools and that is a bad thing. And much of schooling is misdirected.

[denuseri]

I never said you couldn't teach them morality and ethics, thats not what the topic of the thread is even about anyway.

Again is simple logic that the knowledge of safe sexual practices should be available.


If anything we would be the imoral and unethical ones for making such things forbidden fruit.

[Thorne]

In a manner of speaking they are blank slates. Else why would they need to be taught values or morals?
Actually, it's only some morals that need to be taught. Watch children, very young children playing together. They experiment with each other, quite literally. One may strike the other, causing that other child some distress. If the parents immediately jump in and stop things, the first child learns that he can hurt his companions without any repercussions. If you leave them alone, however, the second child will probably retaliate. They have both learned a valuable lesson, without any intervention from "moral" adults. This is most likely they way in which our most basic moral attitudes were originally formed. People learned that there were prices to pay for certain actions. If the price is too high, they learn not to do them.

As far as "waiting to write on". That is exactly what the schools are doing. Unfortunately much of what they are writing is not appropriate!
Appropriate to whom? If the schools are doing their jobs, and we are doing ours, our children should be learning about the real world. And sexuality is a part of the real world. Like it or not, our children are going to be exposed to it for the rest of their lives. Far better to have them learn the truth young, when it can make a lasting impression, than later on when their minds are already too warped to understand the truth.


Many parents abdicate to the schools and that is a bad thing. And much of schooling is misdirected.
Parents relying solely on the schools is certainly a bad thing. But to some degree, the schools are teaching the values of the community and culture to which they belong. If they are not then it is up to the parents to change them. But remember, the schools are teaching to children of different races, different economic classes, different religions, and vastly diverse cultural backgrounds. They must concentrate on those things which are required by all for their future survival as adults. Trying to limit what is taught to those topics considered "safe" by a vocal minority, or even a silent majority, would be just as wrong as not teaching them at all.

[thir]

I never said you couldn't teach them morality and ethics, thats not what the topic of the thread is even about anyway.


Jumping in here for a moment: As the originator of the thread, I'd like to say that I do not mind if the discussion goes in that direction. These things - what to teach our children - are so darn difficult and good to get turned over now and again.



Again is simple logic that the knowledge of safe sexual practices should be available.


If anything we would be the imoral and unethical ones for making such things forbidden fruit.

Agreed unreservedly.

[Ozme52]

Endorphins rule!?!?!
Then there is no such thing as morality?
Morality is like bravery, making the hard choices.
Besides in times past copius means of birth control was not available and yet there was not as many unwed births as now. And that does not even consider the number of pregnancies terminated.

Morality, how it's defined, changes with time and place.

And in times past, birth control was in the hands of woman, who were far better versed in the use of herbals. The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were "premature" births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the "hard choices".

Not to mention other options... meaning orifices, that are considered "improper" by those same moralists. And today... a teens are very willing to call themselves virgins and chaste because they don't have vaginal sex. Oral (nor anal) isn't even "sex".... they know because Bill Clinton said it wasn't.

[Ozme52]

Don't you think that the fact that there are no consequences for their actions has a large bearing on the choices they make.

In a large part your post also reads as if kids have always been engaging in sex at the first opportunity. Yes I know a percentage do but that is not how your post reads.

All kids are going to have sex. At first opportunity. So let's not teach them discipline, just let them do whatever they want whenever. We will find a way to fix it so it does not present adverse consequences.



I'd say it takes far more discipline to choose to use a condom than to just go do it. It takes preparation, consent, willingness to be responsible for ones actions...

Condoms, especially condoms as part of sex education, represent knowledge and responsibility. Without that, it's just kids being their natural irresponsible selves.


In large part that seems like teaching that there are no rules of any kind!! Whereas I obviously think it's just the opposite.

[Ozme52]

"Even in this country, just a few centuries ago, most "children" were fully contributing adults, already out of school and working full time by their teens." (Ozme52)

Just a small little question.
Does anyone know why school is out for summer and returns in the fall?

So they could work in the fields on the family farms. From planting through harvest.



If I remember my history, it was because when the mandatory school laws were enacted it was understood that farm children were needed on the farm. There was far too much work to do to allow them to "fool around with education".

ooops, missed seeing your answer first time around.

[SadisticNature]

So they could work in the fields on the family farms. From planting through harvest.

This is also the reason why attempts to expand the school year in various states have failed. Note that the US has one of the shortest school years of Westernized Democracies, while all of the top education systems in the world have a longer school year than the US.

[Ozme52]

As two other contributors have pointed out, historically speaking, childhood is one of those meaningless divisions you mention. Obviously, younger people are physically unable to do some things, but up till the last few centuries the rule for everything was that when they're big enough they're old enough.

In the 10th Century "Njal's Saga" (which might be called the first recorded celebrity biography) the hero at age 12 asks his father to take him along to a feast, and is told that he can't come because he gets too violent when he's drunk. So he steals a cart-horse and comes anyway, gets into a fight and kills another boy. All this is reported as the story of a berserker who started young, but with no idea that there was anything intrinsically strange about such behaviour in a "child". Compare with a couple of recent cases of murders by preteens in the UK, where the media response has been not only a perfectly reasonable outrage at the details of the killings, but also an almost superstitious horror as if there were something monstrously unnatural about the perpetrators, purely on account of their age.

The reason for the invention of childhood, in the opinion of historians, was firstly the need for a higher level of general education in more technically advanced societies. It therefore became necessary to class people as schoolchildren who had previously been classed as young adults. This became complicated by the Victorian obsession with innocence, narrowly defined as ignorance of sex; moralists took the completely artificial redefinition of childhood as real, and equated teenage sex with child abuse. The resulting conventions were so hammered into Western society that when Europeans encountered cultures where sex still started at puberty, they took it as evidence of the savages' immorality and set out to save them by teaching their children shame.

There are areas where it is a genuine advance of civilisation to restrict young people's access to adult practices: young Njal's drunken brawls were the mark of a barbaric culture. But if we are going to debate the question of chidren's sexual behaviour, it must be on the basis of known realities of physical and mental health and the welfare of society, not an undiscussed assumption that some things are just wrong because it's always been so.

Right and absolutely right because in fact, it has NOT always been so.

[Ozme52]

Which shows another reason this distinction is arbitrary. Your "we" is the USA: here in the UK that limit is set as 18, and in other countries lower still. Similarly, there is no global agreement, even within the Western world, on the legal age for sex. In my and thir's countries sex is legal at 16, and sex between younger teens (as illustrated by the original article) is officially ignored unless older people are involved or there is evidence of coercion or bullying. So far, this has not led to the fall of civilisation.



Yep. Just the fall of puritan civilization... you bastards!!! You sent them here!! :32:

LOL

[Ozme52]

This is also the reason why attempts to expand the school year in various states have failed. Note that the US has one of the shortest school years of Westernized Democracies, while all of the top education systems in the world have a longer school year than the US.

Perhaps... but my parents continued my education year round. Perhaps not formal classes, but I was expected to continue reading and learning (things that directly interested me) and took me places... and didn't just let me run around... I was taken to and educated within museums and such.

Perhaps the problem lies with the fact that our schools are expected by parents to be the sole arbiters and distributors of education.

Not enough parenting is done by parents.

[SadisticNature]

I'd say it takes far more discipline to choose to use a condom than to just go do it. It takes preparation, consent, willingness to be responsible for ones actions...

Condoms, especially condoms as part of sex education, represent knowledge and responsibility. Without that, it's just kids being their natural irresponsible selves.


Agree with this 100%.

Also regarding the early discussion about childhood. I disagree that the main factor is the modernization of society. I think a lot of it is our advanced knowledge of brain development compared to previous societies. I suspect that had previous societies had detailed knowledge about brain development that they could test and verify, a lot of their rules and ages would have been different. Perhaps not, they might have been forced into impractical roles by the times.

As for the whole sex before marriage question, I don't think any classroom instruction in a public secular school system should be based on religious values. I think if you personally have problems with how the school does things you should opt-out (your child needs a permission form for sex-ed if you don't like the curriculum don't sign it), and teach them it yourself (or through your church if its a religious values program). The fact is discussions about various forms of protection are far more difficult than discussions about abstinence for most parents.

[Ozme52]

I never said you couldn't teach them morality and ethics, thats not what the topic of the thread is even about anyway.

Again is simple logic that the knowledge of safe sexual practices should be available.


Not that I wish to defend Duncan in this, but please don't expect anyone to think that the question of sex education and the distribution of condoms has to do with anything other than the perception of what is and isn't moral.

That is the crux of the question. If not, it would be a no-brainer for everyone. "Of course you give out condoms and avoid teen pregnancy."

But for so many people, that's tantamount to abandoning ones morals.

One thing to remember, this all stems from the catholic church prohibitting both sex before marriage and birth control... because they want people to have children and have them born into families that are obedient to the church. The more there are, the more powerful its influence.


If anything we would be the imoral and unethical ones for making such things forbidden fruit. And proving my point, you think, as I do, it is immoral to allow children to make life-changing mistakes for the sake of a conservative, fundamentalist, perspective.

So yes indeed, this thread is exactly all about what is or isn't moral.

[SadisticNature]

Perhaps... but my parents continued my education year round. Perhaps not formal classes, but I was expected to continue reading and learning (things that directly interested me) and took me places... and didn't just let me run around... I was taken to and educated within museums and such.

Perhaps the problem lies with the fact that our schools are expected by parents to be the sole arbiters and distributors of education.

Not enough parenting is done by parents.

If you place more of the onus on the parents however, you create a lot more problems in society. People from poor families either with a single parent who works, or with two parents working full time are much less successful at managing this burden.

Furthermore, blaming the parents for the failures of the school system ensures it continues to fail. It's not like the parents of kids doing poorly in school are going to be more successful as time progresses. Most of the kids who don't do well in school come from families that didn't do well in school, and saying that they should have the supports at home propagates this.

Ultimately the reason we have an education system at all is that parents are not the best qualified people to teach their children a lot of subjects, and if we want the chance of children able to do more and better than their parents did we need a system that enables students to learn skills their parents don't have. Ultimately relying on parents to do more in education fails at this.

[SadisticNature]

Sorry that the statement got interpreted as an attack, wasn't my intent.

I was trying to suggest the level of extremism involved in claiming that the following are equivalent:

(1) The government enforcing a certain moral code regarding sex.
(2) The government enforcing educational requirements for youths.

I personally believe (1) is rather heinous, while (2) is common sense.


Just when I thought it was safe to enter a thread where no one would try to make it personal,,,looks up and rolls my eyes.

I say YES they should have access to condoms and birth control, boy, girl, hermaphrodite it doesnt matter.

Teach them to not have sex at that age all you wish, if they want they will find a way to do it anyway. They may as well know how to be safe.

[DuncanONeil]

Entire argument apocraphal!


Morality, how it's defined, changes with time and place.

And in times past, birth control was in the hands of woman, who were far better versed in the use of herbals. The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were "premature" births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the "hard choices".

Not to mention other options... meaning orifices, that are considered "improper" by those same moralists. And today... a teens are very willing to call themselves virgins and chaste because they don't have vaginal sex. Oral (nor anal) isn't even "sex".... they know because Bill Clinton said it wasn't.

[DuncanONeil]

Oops! Wrong person.


I'd say it takes far more discipline to choose to use a condom than to just go do it. It takes preparation, consent, willingness to be responsible for ones actions...

Condoms, especially condoms as part of sex education, represent knowledge and responsibility. Without that, it's just kids being their natural irresponsible selves.
Whereas I obviously think it's just the opposite.

[DuncanONeil]

I think you have a misunderstanding of discipline.


I'd say it takes far more discipline to choose to use a condom than to just go do it. It takes preparation, consent, willingness to be responsible for ones actions...

Condoms, especially condoms as part of sex education, represent knowledge and responsibility. Without that, it's just kids being their natural irresponsible selves.
Whereas I obviously think it's just the opposite.

[DuncanONeil]

Knowledge and handing out condoms are two entirely different things!


I never said you couldn't teach them morality and ethics, thats not what the topic of the thread is even about anyway.

Again is simple logic that the knowledge of safe sexual practices should be available.


If anything we would be the imoral and unethical ones for making such things forbidden fruit.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually, it's only some morals that need to be taught. Watch children, very young children playing together. They experiment with each other, quite literally. One may strike the other, causing that other child some distress. If the parents immediately jump in and stop things, the first child learns that he can hurt his companions without any repercussions. If you leave them alone, however, the second child will probably retaliate. They have both learned a valuable lesson, without any intervention from "moral" adults. This is most likely they way in which our most basic moral attitudes were originally formed. People learned that there were prices to pay for certain actions. If the price is too high, they learn not to do them.

If in your example there are no repercussions then the parents are to be faulted for failure of parenting.
Perhaps this may be AN origin of communal behaviour. But what about the kid that does not retaliate? Morals are about making a concious choice.


Appropriate to whom? If the schools are doing their jobs, and we are doing ours, our children should be learning about the real world. And sexuality is a part of the real world. Like it or not, our children are going to be exposed to it for the rest of their lives. Far better to have them learn the truth young, when it can make a lasting impression, than later on when their minds are already too warped to understand the truth.

Schools are not doing their job. Based on their rate of success. How young? Is it not better to deal with the questions when the child seeks the answer than for somebody to simply decide now is the time for all children to learn about sex?



Parents relying solely on the schools is certainly a bad thing. But to some degree, the schools are teaching the values of the community and culture to which they belong. If they are not then it is up to the parents to change them. But remember, the schools are teaching to children of different races, different economic classes, different religions, and vastly diverse cultural backgrounds. They must concentrate on those things which are required by all for their future survival as adults. Trying to limit what is taught to those topics considered "safe" by a vocal minority, or even a silent majority, would be just as wrong as not teaching them at all.

Values are the province of school to teach. Merely reinforce. All of those differences really do not affect values.
As for what the schools do is to teach way more in cultural stuff than real education, ya know readin' writin' and rithmatic. And all that history and science stuff.

[DuncanONeil]

If I remember my history, it was because when the mandatory school laws were enacted it was understood that farm children were needed on the farm. There was far too much work to do to allow them to "fool around with education".


You get the prize!

[DuncanONeil]

Which shows another reason this distinction is arbitrary. Your "we" is the USA: here in the UK that limit is set as 18, and in other countries lower still. Similarly, there is no global agreement, even within the Western world, on the legal age for sex. In my and thir's countries sex is legal at 16, and sex between younger teens (as illustrated by the original article) is officially ignored unless older people are involved or there is evidence of coercion or bullying. So far, this has not led to the fall of civilisation.

We tried 18. But the Feds did not like the idea and blackmailed the states to change to 21!

[DuncanONeil]

Then make sure that your shool district, or church leaders, or political leaders, don't restrict the "technical stuff" that the teachers need to teach. It's only biology, after all.


I have a lot of problems with the things being taught in these places. Mostly with the political leaders and the school district. The school district seems to be way more socialist that even the current Administration.

[DuncanONeil]

This is also the reason why attempts to expand the school year in various states have failed. Note that the US has one of the shortest school years of Westernized Democracies, while all of the top education systems in the world have a longer school year than the US.


You have to bring that up NOW!?!?!
I threw that chart out about two days ago!!!!!

[DuncanONeil]

Why must values that are also values within a religious setting to be excluded from a school setting?


Agree with this 100%.

Also regarding the early discussion about childhood. I disagree that the main factor is the modernization of society. I think a lot of it is our advanced knowledge of brain development compared to previous societies. I suspect that had previous societies had detailed knowledge about brain development that they could test and verify, a lot of their rules and ages would have been different. Perhaps not, they might have been forced into impractical roles by the times.

As for the whole sex before marriage question, I don't think any classroom instruction in a public secular school system should be based on religious values. I think if you personally have problems with how the school does things you should opt-out (your child needs a permission form for sex-ed if you don't like the curriculum don't sign it), and teach them it yourself (or through your church if its a religious values program). The fact is discussions about various forms of protection are far more difficult than discussions about abstinence for most parents.

[DuncanONeil]

Interesting! And well put. I do have some minor difficulty with some of the ideas within, but as I said well put!


Not that I wish to defend Duncan in this, but please don't expect anyone to think that the question of sex education and the distribution of condoms has to do with anything other than the perception of what is and isn't moral.

That is the crux of the question. If not, it would be a no-brainer for everyone. "Of course you give out condoms and avoid teen pregnancy."

But for so many people, that's tantamount to abandoning ones morals.

One thing to remember, this all stems from the catholic church prohibitting both sex before marriage and birth control... because they want people to have children and have them born into families that are obedient to the church. The more there are, the more powerful its influence.

And proving my point, you think, as I do, it is immoral to allow children to make life-changing mistakes for the sake of a conservative, fundamentalist, perspective.

So yes indeed, this thread is exactly all about what is or isn't moral.

[DuncanONeil]

There is a serious problem endemic to schools when high schools have to have classes in remedial reading and math. Colleges are even having to institute remedial classes.
Progress through school is supposed to indicate an ever higher level of knowledge. However, skill falls off precipitously between the universal test in grade four and the one in grade eight. If these are not evidence that schools are failing, what would it take?


If you place more of the onus on the parents however, you create a lot more problems in society. People from poor families either with a single parent who works, or with two parents working full time are much less successful at managing this burden.

Furthermore, blaming the parents for the failures of the school system ensures it continues to fail. It's not like the parents of kids doing poorly in school are going to be more successful as time progresses. Most of the kids who don't do well in school come from families that didn't do well in school, and saying that they should have the supports at home propagates this.

Ultimately the reason we have an education system at all is that parents are not the best qualified people to teach their children a lot of subjects, and if we want the chance of children able to do more and better than their parents did we need a system that enables students to learn skills their parents don't have. Ultimately relying on parents to do more in education fails at this.

[DuncanONeil]

Which government?


Sorry that the statement got interpreted as an attack, wasn't my intent.

I was trying to suggest the level of extremism involved in claiming that the following are equivalent:

(1) The government enforcing a certain moral code regarding sex.
(2) The government enforcing educational requirements for youths.

I personally believe (1) is rather heinous, while (2) is common sense.

[Thorne]

If in your example there are no repercussions then the parents are to be faulted for failure of parenting.
Perhaps this may be AN origin of communal behaviour. But what about the kid that does not retaliate? Morals are about making a concious choice.
Depends on the repercussions. Telling the child he's been a bad boy and never to do that again is not punishment, it's giving the child the attention he wants. Parents don't really punish their kids anymore. And yes, morality is a learned behavior which allows one to make a conscious, hopefully informed, choice. And that's the point of this topic. Should young teens be allowed to make that choice for themselves? And if so, should they have the tools and information necessary to make that choice? I think they are making those choices, despite what their parents may want, which makes the first question moot. And makes the answer to the second question a resounding "YES"! The parents must provide the "tools", the moral background needed to make the choice. The schools must provide the information, the real-world biological information which they need to know. Then, if the young adults decide to engage in sexual activities, they should have the ability to obtain the condoms and birth control systems needed to keep them safe from disease and unwanted pregnancy.


Schools are not doing their job. Based on their rate of success. How young? Is it not better to deal with the questions when the child seeks the answer than for somebody to simply decide now is the time for all children to learn about sex?
As for what the schools do is to teach way more in cultural stuff than real education, ya know readin' writin' and rithmatic. And all that history and science stuff.

Ask yourself, Why are the schools not doing their jobs? Could it be because parents won't allow them to teach their kids about "dirty, nasty" sex? Could it be because parents won't allow the schools to discipline children for misbehavior? Is it because the parents don't want their kids learning that "science stuff" that says the Earth is more than 6000 years old and that "man evolved from monkeys?"
In short, perhaps the schools are failing because parents are forcing them to teach only those things which they, the parents, consider "moral" instead of teaching what is right.

[Thorne]

Why must values that are also values within a religious setting to be excluded from a school setting?

Some values obviously apply in both religious and non-religious contexts: proscriptions against murder, theft, child abuse, etc. Other values apply only within a religious context: prayer, bible study, etc.

The problem occurs when people try to extend those values which only apply in their religious setting into public schools, where people with other religious values are sending their kids. Which sets of values should be taught?

[Thorne]

I have a lot of problems with the things being taught in these places. Mostly with the political leaders and the school district. The school district seems to be way more socialist that even the current Administration.

Well, if nothing else you could try moving to Texas. They seem quite ready and willing to drag the rest of the country's school systems down into the muck and mire. They don't want their kids being taught that the Earth is 5 billion years old, or that "evil"ution stuff.

[denuseri]

Looks up and giggles. Now I know why I was home schooled for allmost all of my education. lmao

Oh and BTW, both of my parents were pretty much as conservative as one can get big time right wing republicans, as well as being staunch Lutherans. (though momma did convert from judism)

I and all my brothers and sisters still had access to birth control and knew all about condoms and where to get them by the time we were 12; my Mother and Father made dam sure of it.

Why...well becuase it was common freaking sence to educate your child properly and provide for their saftey, regardless of ones political or religious afiliation.

Did I have need of condoms and birth control when I was living in their home?

NO... I didn't need eaither until I was out and living on my own.

But I could have gotten access to both without a problem and knew how to use them if needed.

Though I would have been freaking insane to try anything too crazy with my gunney sgt father scaring all my potential boyfriends half to death, and big brothers helping, along with my moms witheringly hawkish gaze watching over me. Anything nuaghty wasnt going on in their home or elswehere if they could help it, but they also didnt live in some fantasy world where they thought little denu was going to stay chaste until married eaither. (Probabely explains why mom had me put on birth control once I turned 15 anyway, just in case I was lieing and having sex behind their backs, or in the event that somthing happened beyound my control, the condoms were something she kept in a big paper bag in the hall closet and we all knew where to get them, she made sure of it.)

But like knowing where and how all the guns in the house worked and how to safely opperate them (I was a crack shot at a very early age) I still had the nessesary common sence knowledge imparted to me all the same...just in case I had real need of it and somehow managed to never shoot anyone while growing up or since then.

[DuncanONeil]

Ask yourself, Why are the schools not doing their jobs? Could it be because parents won't allow them to teach their kids about "dirty, nasty" sex? Could it be because parents won't allow the schools to discipline children for misbehavior? Is it because the parents don't want their kids learning that "science stuff" that says the Earth is more than 6000 years old and that "man evolved from monkeys?"
In short, perhaps the schools are failing because parents are forcing them to teach only those things which they, the parents, consider "moral" instead of teaching what is right.


I was not being that specific. Schools are failing in general. By the evidence stated.
Schools also do not hold their students accountable for the work assigned. Kids are free to "choose" to do or not do the assignment. No one is permitted to be less successful than any of the others. Yes that is a bad thing! At least in the manner prosecuted by the schools.
"Science Stuff" is much larger than just biology. It includes; Chemistry, Math, Geography, Physics, and History. Unfortunately both Geography and History have turned into mere treatises on culture.
I would also like to see a return of Civics into the classroom!
I think the concept of a creation 6,000 years ago is a misinterpretation of something. And that monkey thing that is Darwin's fault!

[DuncanONeil]

Some values obviously apply in both religious and non-religious contexts: proscriptions against murder, theft, child abuse, etc. Other values apply only within a religious context: prayer, bible study, etc.

The problem occurs when people try to extend those values which only apply in their religious setting into public schools, where people with other religious values are sending their kids. Which sets of values should be taught?

Neither prayer nor Bible study are values.

[DuncanONeil]

Well, if nothing else you could try moving to Texas. They seem quite ready and willing to drag the rest of the country's school systems down into the muck and mire. They don't want their kids being taught that the Earth is 5 billion years old, or that "evil"ution stuff.


You are making assumptions here!

Nor do I believe that such is the case in Texas!

[DuncanONeil]

"But like knowing where and how all the guns in the house worked and how to safely opperate them (I was a crack shot at a very early age) I still had the nessesary common sence knowledge imparted to me all the same...just in case I had real need of it and somehow managed to never shoot anyone while growing up or since then."

Serious advantage to having a Gunny for a father!!!!

[thir]

Some values obviously apply in both religious and non-religious contexts: proscriptions against murder, theft, child abuse, etc. Other values apply only within a religious context: prayer, bible study, etc.

The problem occurs when people try to extend those values which only apply in their religious setting into public schools, where people with other religious values are sending their kids. Which sets of values should be taught?

Or with no religion.

[SadisticNature]

Why must values that are also values within a religious setting to be excluded from a school setting?

There is a difference between excluding values from a setting entirely and from teaching based on those values in the classroom. I have no problems with religious clubs at school for things like lunchtime prayer or reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs - wearing of religious symbols provided they aren't weapons for instance.

But a school should cater to all its users not just the majority. There is no consistent way of teaching based on a specific faith that caters to every faith in the classroom. The way many nations have solved this problem is through the use of a secular school system.

If you want faith based teaching you can get it in a private school. I don't see why the burden is on the government to provide teaching based on the values of your specific faith in a public education system. This would be very problematic to run if they had to provide it for every single faith and would probably be the definition of large government.

[Thorne]

You are making assumptions here!
Perhaps, but I think you're feeding those assumptions.



Nor do I believe that such is the case in Texas!
Think not? (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/churchstate/1726/)

And this was just one of many instances where the TBoE has been trashing proper schooling by forcing their conservative religious beliefs to be taught in PUBLIC schools. Separation of church and state? Not in Texas!

[denuseri]

Serious advantage to having a Gunny for a father!!!!

My mother and father raised us together btw, and neiather of their jobs really mattered in that part of the equation to us as kids. And your right in it was an advantage having condoms available and birth control and being taught how to use both just in case I needed them.

[Thorne]

My mother and father raised us together btw, and neiather of their jobs really mattered in that part of the equation to us as kids. And your right in it was an advantage having condoms available and birth control and being taught how to use both just in case I needed them.

I think this is where most fundamentalists get it wrong. They make the assumption that protecting kids from the complications of sexual activity is tantamount to encouraging them to perform such activities. They can't seem to understand that providing contraceptives is really no different than buying a bicycle helmet for your kids. You're not forcing them to ride their bikes, but if they do ride you want them to be protected.

[denuseri]

Both of my parents are what some would loosely coin as being in the camp of the "fundamentalists" and they still taught us safe sex.

The main point I am trying to make is that common sence is common sence, one doesnt need politics, religion, philosophy or any other kind of BS to have and or employ it's use.

And trying to tie what should be basic biology 101 to any of the "isms" is just plain bad sophistry, no matter which side of which "isim" is doing it.

So is trying to paint things into any stereotypical partisan corners or anti religious ones etc etc.

[Ozme52]

Agree with this 100%.Thanx.


Also regarding the early discussion about childhood. I disagree that the main factor is the modernization of society. I think a lot of it is our advanced knowledge of brain development compared to previous societies.

This is actually very "new" science and hasn't been widely accepted yet. if that were not so, we wouldn't be seeing more and more localities prosecuting children as adults instead of perhaps raising the age, especially for teen murderers who lashed out violently on a one-time basis against a constant, even dangerous bully.

Instead prosecutors are trying these minor children as full on adults.

So while I agree that science is beginning to understand that teen brains aren't "fully developed for rational thought" sounds good... it isn't being used and certainly not being used to justify delaying the teaching of sex ed.

It's strictly argued on moral grounds.

[Ozme52]

If you place more of the onus on the parents however, you create a lot more problems in society. People from poor families either with a single parent who works, or with two parents working full time are much less successful at managing this burden.

Furthermore, blaming the parents for the failures of the school system ensures it continues to fail. It's not like the parents of kids doing poorly in school are going to be more successful as time progresses. Most of the kids who don't do well in school come from families that didn't do well in school, and saying that they should have the supports at home propagates this.

Ultimately the reason we have an education system at all is that parents are not the best qualified people to teach their children a lot of subjects, and if we want the chance of children able to do more and better than their parents did we need a system that enables students to learn skills their parents don't have. Ultimately relying on parents to do more in education fails at this.

Though (mostly) true, it doesn't change the fact that we (in the US) throw more and more money at education getting less and less value. And for that I blame parents who, for all the reasons you mention, don't take an interest in their childrens' educations.

I'm not suggesting that they take over the task... but they could encourage their children to explore "educational" venues. Whether libraries or nature centers or just the History Channel once in a while.

How many children read graphic novels... and don't realize the The 300 is a true story (give or take some aggregious poetic license.) If they did, might they not learn more about what happened just before or just after... or Troy... or Robin Hood. It would be so simple... just to say "There's more to that story ya know." and send them off to the library (damn, I almost forgot...) or to the computer!! and find out. And then say "Tell me about it tonight at dinner."

[Ozme52]

Entire argument apocraphal!




Morality, how it's defined, changes with time and place.

And in times past, birth control was in the hands of woman, who were far better versed in the use of herbals. The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were "premature" births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the "hard choices".

Not to mention other options... meaning orifices, that are considered "improper" by those same moralists. And today... a teens are very willing to call themselves virgins and chaste because they don't have vaginal sex. Oral (nor anal) isn't even "sex".... they know because Bill Clinton said it wasn't


Okay? which part are you saying is spurious?

That social mores change over time? You can't really believe we have the same standards today as in the past... even the near past isn't the same as the far past.

That Bill Clinton didn't claim oral genital contact with Monica Lewinsky wasn't sex? Because I think that's a pretty well documented accounting of what he said.

That children today who openly engage in fellatio and anal intercourse think they're still virgins and chaste... because, though that's more anectdotal, I would argue that it isn't spurious.

And according to Google, there are 25,000 articles, conversations, or websites available on the topic of Herbal Abortives.

So... what part invalidates the entire arguement as apochryphal?

[Ozme52]

I think you have a misunderstanding of discipline.

I doubt that. There are many definitions. Please pay attention to the context of the sentence.

Definition #5c (if that helps.)


Main Entry: 1dis·ci·pline
Pronunciation: \ˈdi-sə-plən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin disciplina teaching, learning, from discipulus pupil
Date: 13th century
1 : punishment
2 obsolete : instruction
3 : a field of study
4 : training that corrects, molds, or perfects the mental faculties or moral character
5 a : control gained by enforcing obedience or order b : orderly or prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior c : self-control
6 : a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity

[Ozme52]

Why must values that are also values within a religious setting to be excluded from a school setting?

They don't except when those religious values don't match mine.

And expecially not when a percentage of those "values" are arbitrary and misrepresented as being holy.

I'll always fall back (because I'm petty that way) on the "societal abuse" I took in school for eating meat on Fridays. A religious value of piety based on a bribe the then Pope took from the Genoese fishing cartel. But I had to endure as a child because I wasn't raised to believe JC died for "my" sins... sins like eating a bologna sandwich on a Friday.

THAT's why your religious values have no place in an American (meaning USA) school.

[DuncanONeil]

I went to a private school. I am here to tell you that the only time there was any "faith based" based teaching was during the religion class.
All other subjects were taught based on the science of the subject!
I have never advocated for faith based teaching. To assert so is to introduce your own personal bias into the discussion. Please try to refrain from doing so as I make effort to be specific in what I say.

I will give credit for you apparent acceptance of various students differing desires, "I have no problems with religious clubs at school".



There is a difference between excluding values from a setting entirely and from teaching based on those values in the classroom. I have no problems with religious clubs at school for things like lunchtime prayer or reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs - wearing of religious symbols provided they aren't weapons for instance.

But a school should cater to all its users not just the majority. There is no consistent way of teaching based on a specific faith that caters to every faith in the classroom. The way many nations have solved this problem is through the use of a secular school system.

If you want faith based teaching you can get it in a private school. I don't see why the burden is on the government to provide teaching based on the values of your specific faith in a public education system. This would be very problematic to run if they had to provide it for every single faith and would probably be the definition of large government.

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps, but I think you're feeding those assumptions.

As I stated in one of the recent messages before this one I am most certain I have not advocated for all subjects to be taught from the basis of theology. Such was not the case when I attended St. Benedict's Grammar and High School and need not be so in any school today.


Think not? (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/churchstate/1726/)

Read most of the article. Had some agreements and some disagreements. I believe there was more to the Hutchinson case than the simple blurb in the article. The is a vague recolection of hearing or reading about it recently.


And this was just one of many instances where the TBoE has been trashing proper schooling by forcing their conservative religious beliefs to be taught in PUBLIC schools. Separation of church and state? Not in Texas!

This is where I think we may have some serious differences. I can find on assertion of a total separation of church and state in the Constitution, First Amendment notwithstanding. Yes I am aware of what Jefferson said in other sources but much like a law we must deal with what is on paper. In the above referenced article there was reference to the Declaration. The language implied that the Declaration is to have no place in the Pantheon of Founding Documents. I would have to take exception. The Declaration is the source document that presents the grievance and the proposed solution and as such is the basis upon all that follows occurs.

[DuncanONeil]

I was thinking about the firearms!


My mother and father raised us together btw, and neiather of their jobs really mattered in that part of the equation to us as kids. And your right in it was an advantage having condoms available and birth control and being taught how to use both just in case I needed them.

[DuncanONeil]

Now the reference to "The 300" was quite interesting. Having a discussion today at lunch with my 27 year old I brought up "The Stand" to help in explaining a BBCA series. She said the book was ok but the mini-series made the story easier to understand because of the visuals. Which made it easier to deal with the wide disparity of locations and continued movement of people.
I guess that made the mini-series kind of like modern Cliff Notes!


Though (mostly) true, it doesn't change the fact that we (in the US) throw more and more money at education getting less and less value. And for that I blame parents who, for all the reasons you mention, don't take an interest in their childrens' educations.

I'm not suggesting that they take over the task... but they could encourage their children to explore "educational" venues. Whether libraries or nature centers or just the History Channel once in a while.

How many children read graphic novels... and don't realize the The 300 is a true story (give or take some aggregious poetic license.) If they did, might they not learn more about what happened just before or just after... or Troy... or Robin Hood. It would be so simple... just to say "There's more to that story ya know." and send them off to the library (damn, I almost forgot...) or to the computer!! and find out. And then say "Tell me about it tonight at dinner."

[DuncanONeil]

Did not say spurious! Apocraphal!

Mostly what I had in mind is; "The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were 'premature' births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the 'hard choices'."

Which essentially means neither side can actually produce material of an evidentiary nature.


Okay? which part are you saying is spurious?

That social mores change over time? You can't really believe we have the same standards today as in the past... even the near past isn't the same as the far past.

That Bill Clinton didn't claim oral genital contact with Monica Lewinsky wasn't sex? Because I think that's a pretty well documented accounting of what he said.

That children today who openly engage in fellatio and anal intercourse think they're still virgins and chaste... because, though that's more anectdotal, I would argue that it isn't spurious.

And according to Google, there are 25,000 articles, conversations, or websites available on the topic of Herbal Abortives.

So... what part invalidates the entire arguement as apochryphal?

[DuncanONeil]

I doubt that. There are many definitions. Please pay attention to the context of the sentence.

Definition #5c (if that helps.)


I would much prefer that six be the prime definition. Way too many people are fixated on, what, the first two!

[DuncanONeil]

Abstaining from meat on Friday is not a value!
I was never presented with meat on Friday as a sin. Just something not done.


They don't except when those religious values don't match mine.

And expecially not when a percentage of those "values" are arbitrary and misrepresented as being holy.

I'll always fall back (because I'm petty that way) on the "societal abuse" I took in school for eating meat on Fridays. A religious value of piety based on a bribe the then Pope took from the Genoese fishing cartel. But I had to endure as a child because I wasn't raised to believe JC died for "my" sins... sins like eating a bologna sandwich on a Friday.

THAT's why your religious values have no place in an American (meaning USA) school.

[Ozme52]

Did not say spurious! Apocraphal!

Well bud!... you didn't capitalize it the first time!... so!, yes!, you did say spurious!

!!! ;)


Main Entry: apoc·ry·phal
Pronunciation: \-fəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1590
1 : of doubtful authenticity : spurious
2 often capitalized : of or resembling the Apocrypha

[Ozme52]

I would much prefer that six be the prime definition. Way too many people are fixated on, what, the first two!

That may well be... but don't say I am somehow incapable of choosing my words correctly, implying that my misunderstanding of some word invalidates my arguement.

Such would be an apochryphal implication.

[Ozme52]

Abstaining from meat on Friday is not a value!
I was never presented with meat on Friday as a sin. Just something not done.

Fine. Go ahead and miss the point.

Bye.

[Torq]

And yet ANOTHER good thread RUINED, with personal attacks in lieu of

STAYING ON TOPIC!!!

T