Sex Ed classes or "WHY WON'T YOU TEACH ME USEFUL THINGS, EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM?"

That's actually not far from the truth with the idea of the Old Covenant. What few potential homosexuality references remain are either shrouded in flowery ambiguity or subject to interpretation or a wide variety of translation perspectives.

Jesus came.

I think it would interesting to discuss this. It really would be a different sort of curriculum if there was discussion about gender identity and orientation before even mentioning the mechanics of sex.

You are all going to hell. Jesus saves he shoots, he scores!

It WOULD be a hockey joke that manages to make me laugh insanely when it involves Jesus.

Since you put a lot of energy in your post, I will answer you. I would love to answer the others too, but as you're pointing out it is growing past the scope you initially intended for this topic, and I'm not sure if there's more to be had at this point than one big pile-on.

It is a mixture of yes and no, but mostly no.

You compare it to not giving proper training to a crane operator, but the fact is that most people used to live their lives without having the state teaching them about the mechanics of their domestic lives, and went just fine with basic community standards. You say the people need to be informed in detail about sexuality. I received sexual education in my private Catholic high school, and find it acceptable today in retrospect. Although I am concerned that it could be abused and am not a proponent of it, I know it can be done correctly and tastefully.

This is the fundamental difference between you and I. You have a morally relativist view on matters of sexuality, and think that nothing is sacred but the concept of liberty itself and not having this view of society is absolutely fundamental to even be allowed any sway on politics, while I think it is an utopia and lean toward traditional cultural values. You believe the state should take a big place in people's lives and teach them how to live their lives in multiple ways, while I am bothered by it and think that it is attempting to correct a problem that was mostly brought about by the liberalization of society and the progressive dissolution of the nuclear family. That is what I meant by a fundamental disagreement, these two views are polar opposite of one another, and completely incompatible.

The hell we did, we just did everything we could to hide it from view and make it as invisible as possible, to the point of shuffling off unwed teenage mothers to labor camps group homes, which the Catholic church seemed to hold a nice monopoly on.

Alright, I think I understand where you're coming from, now.

The problem I have with your point of view is that it no longer reflects the reality. Because of the way our current society is now structured, people need information on it. There is way too much evidence that proves we need information on it, because, let's face it, society grows and changes. The current one needs information and that's that. It has grown with a complete lack of understanding on sexuality and sex and other related topics, and not addressing these questions is detrimental to everyone and has, in my opinion, been one of the things contributing to rape culture and unrealistic porn and other things.

Saying that we shouldn't teach sex ed in school is basically turning a blind eye on the problem, from what I can see. Speaking as the younger generation who got a pretty decent sex ed class, it has only been helpful to me and my peers as opposed to harmful.

I was also NOT implying that the state should be up in everyone's business. I'm actually surprised that's what you understood from my post, because what I intended by my whole "Do not promote one method over another" was, in fact, supporting the idea of the state NOT telling the younger generation how to live their lives.

Providing information on sex isn't going "HEY, YOU, LISTEN, THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE DONE, DO IT." Providing information does the following, in my opinion: It allows people to know what they're getting into, gives them a context, and with that knowledge, allows them to make their own decisions. However, it's an informative decision, not one based on ignorance and panic and fear and lack of comprehension.

On another note, the state already plays a fundamental role in our lives via providing our education, health care, job prospects, etc, etc. Whether you want it or not, the state is where you live, and either you play by its rules or move elsewhere. All I'm asking for is a standardized, comprehensive course on the human body in relation to sex, how to protect myself while having sex, and not to be told I should feel ashamed of wanting sex or what my bodies does/how it reacts to sex. That's not telling me how to live my life, that's giving me information that I will personally assess and can choose to adopt or not.

Sex ed isn't teaching me how to live. It's giving me information in the same way an English or French or Math or Science class would and it's up to me to apply it to my regular life.

I don't think you actually know what the word "undertone" means.










(pretend I referenced the Japanese "Dream of the Fisherman's Wife" here.)

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the Classics will realize that you managed to make two factual claims in a single sentence, and both of them are wrong.

Here's a nickel, kid, go buy yourself a copy of Bullfinch's Mythology.

Goat fucker!

But you screw one goat...

Wouldn't discussing the mechanics of sex before discussing properly stuff like gender identity and asexuality be more useful?
It would give you more time to think more about how comfortable you are with the argument, and why you are/aren't comfortable with that.

At least, I think it's easier to ask yourself "No, I really don't want to have sex, why is that?" after you know more about it.

They really didn't. Especially if basic community standard in your country was"kill your wife if she cheats on you" until it became illegal.

Is that a nice way to say "I am I and you are nothing" ?
Because nothing you said is hardly an answer to what Randissimo asked, it's just you confirming your "views" on sex-ed.
Which are "We should teach people that abstinence is awesome, because my religion said so".

That goat looks REALLY into it.

"God damn big government commies, always trying to get the state to not force my religious beliefs on everyone!"

Randissimo
To answer your previous question, why religion and other views are so prevalent in Sex Ed.

Isn't it because many people are so deeply set in such views, that they see it as the truth, ignoring many other views that exist.
Think of it like this: Many people oppose eating animals that resemble pets in any shape or form. However, there are people out there that do not see Dogs or Cats as pets and see them as sustenance instead. For the majority, this is unbelievable, for they have lived with domestic animals for such a long time. They don't understand that to some people, Dogs are merely a culinary treats not pets.

Some mindsets are deeply rooted into their religious faith and therefore they don't think that their beliefs conflicts with many others.
They view it as the TRUTH and it must be TAUGHT.

At least, that's how I think it looks inside of their brains. I, myself, am not a very religious person.

Of course, I'm generalising many people in this post. Many religious people are not like this.

Rereading that, I am now offended by that comment, HHR.

What's wrong with different lifestyles? Are you trying to say that by my not wanting to get married or in a relationship, I'm a heretic? Are you trying to say that someone in a same sex relationship is sinning simply because the person they love isn't of the opposite gender? Are you saying that people who are more open to differences or certain topics are completely wrong and should be banished? That individuals in open relationships that they talked about and are comfortable with should all be damned to Hell?

Look, you're allowed to have your religious beliefs, I don't want to take that away from you. But I take offence to you implying through your arguments that you think everyone else is wrong and your viewpoint is the only right one and everyone should abide by it.

I mean, seriously.

Are you going to tell me that religions older than Christianity and even Judaism are in the wrong, too? Because if that's your intention behind your arguments, we're going to have a problem, here. If I am, in fact, just reading too much into things and overreacting, I do sincerely apologize.

But let me make myself clear: I'm okay with disagreements and different faiths, but I cannot tolerate it if you feel your viewpoint is superior and it's totally appropriate to make it the norm. That anything else is abnormal or heretic or wrong.

If you start suggesting that faith should dictate every aspect of someone's life, regardless of if they believe in that or not, you're crossing a line. If you want to teach your children that, do it. But don't tell me other children need to abide by the Scriptures as well, because for fuck's sake, not everyone is Christian, let alone Jewish. Making that the norm to follow would be bringing us back to the early 1800s, and there is a reason society has separated State and Church.

I fail to see what's wrong with telling people there's more than one lifestyle they can follow. It offers them a choice, and based on the options they know are available, they can choose the one they think is most appropriate for them. It's that simple. It's not forcing them to follow one, it's informing them more than one exists and that they are all available if that person decides one isn't working out for them.

This reminds me of the theory of Russell's Teapot, actually.

Because I'm lazy...
mind explaining?

FWIW, I feel like this is the exact same argument that HHR is trying to make.

Probably, which pains me because I'm trying to be fair to the whole abstinence approach as well. I mean, it's the method I use myself. But I was still taught about sex and there have been huge benefits from that, so I'm having trouble relating that with his opinion.

Another thing I have issues with: How he's seemingly shutting down what I find to be perfectly valid relationships. Now, I don't agree with his opinion, but I'm not claiming it should be eradicated either. What I'm reading into his comments, however, is that all other methods are completely wrong and should not be a thing and to implement that, which kind of. Goes against the whole Freedom Of Speech/Living As You Are and I find that unfair.

Of course, it's quite possible I'm reading too much into his comments and that's not what he meant, in which case, I really am sorry and I apologize for jumping the gun.

Here's the Wikipedia page where I read about it. They've added stuff since I first read up on it, though.

Randissimo, you're becoming quite a BAMF~

Leaving the religious argument aside (which is starting to make my brain hurt), is there any reason why same-sex stuff should *not* be taught in sex ed classes?

So what if only a minority of your students are going to be LGBT? Only a minority of students is ever going to need algebra in their lives either and that certainly hasn't stopped any school, ever. Besides, I don't think that "Be very, very careful at first when doing anal or you're in for a world of pain" or "You know, oral is something girls can both give *and* receive" are bad lessons for hetero students either.

And while we're at it, mentioning asexuality would be great, too. Would probably help those folks a lot, as well as their prospective romantic partners.

Please note I was reading up on atheists theories back in my early teens when I was raging against Christianity. I've made my peace since then and don't firmly believe in atheist theories either, because frankly, I align myself with the taoist philosophy, for the most part. If anyone was offended by my bringing it up, I'm sorry, that was not the intention in which I mentioned it. When I said Yelim's point reminded me of the theory, I meant that in terms of "We're raised to relate this to that, but overall, it may or may not be correct. There's no way to prove it, one way or another."

However, concrete things, like sexuality and sex, can be proven and need to be discussed.

I spent about three years thinking that I was some sort of horrible deviant beyond measure, and could never talk to anyone about sex ever, because I was fantasizing about people of the same sex getting it on, and I was in such a sheltered community I did not know such a thing existed. Anywhere. Ever. So clearly I was such a Bad Person that my mind had come up with impossible things no one else had ever thought of. (Because, y'know, I was a kid, which makes for a certain amount of solipsism.)

It's funny how being in a religious school that diligently preached No Sex Before Marriage, and thought "also, heterosexual only" was so obvious they didn't even need to specify, didn't keep me from thinking about other options.

Which is to say, yeah, I think some mention of "Also, there is this stuff that is not heterosexual" in sex ed would be a good plan. But I am also experiencing a little bitterness on the whole topic.

Asexuality really needs to be covered, especially since there are various way to handle a romantic relationship with an asexual and there are also various degrees of asexuality.

Because it's still not widely known even by health professions (which really should be remedied). Even if you see an OB/GYN, for example, if you happen to only sleep with women, there are doctors and nurses who have no idea how to respond to that.

(The original source of that exchange is hard to pin down, but I've heard of many similar stories; this isn't uncommon, unfortunately.)

ETA: Found it! It's from a girl in Florida.

HRR is a perfect example of the kind of guy you should just put on ignore instead of getting baited into answering. For fuck's sake, people, he still believes Grimoire is coming out and is going to be the best game ever. The man is literally not capable of recognizing reality if it hit him in the face with a tray of Truth; stop replying to him and put him on ignore.

It's not about fucking community standards you dishonest piece of shit. It's about teaching people how shit works so that they can avoid the many, many, many pitfalls of unsafe sex and also so that they can make informed choices about reproduction and their sexual health generally. Because before that happened? Your 'community standards' killed people and ruined lives, don't you dare pretend to be on the side of the moralists here. You're a fucking hypocrite and the sooner you and your evil pack of fuckers curl up and die, the sooner society can stop pretending that your superstitions are in any way relevant.

Paraphrased "I'm terrified that my stone-age views on morality won't be forced down everyone's throat anymore."

Here's a newsflash for you; polyamory and promiscuity are precisely as valid as abstinence, monogamy and any other consensual, safe sexual regimen. The fact that you don't like some of those should have zero bearing on what schools teach. Liberalism hasn't made people fuck more, hormones are doing a fantastic job of that all by themselves, we don't need internet porn and late-night cinema to want to put bits of ourselves inside other people. Sex education is not correcting any kind of problem brought about by 'the dissolution of the nuclear family' or less prudishness in society generally, it's solving the problem of people making bad choices about their sexual health.

I think HHR has been admirably clear in what he believes. He's believes in Biblical literalism, which necessarily entails that the word of God decides what is moral and what isn't, quite apart from societal consequences. He likes to think following God's word will bring about an obviously better society, but this is logically dispensable, God's right regardless.

He also believes this:

Sure, he clearly doesn't understand what moral relativism is, or that everyone treats liberty as a contingent value, or that people who think just like him have a disturbingly powerful sway on politics, or that 'traditional cultural values' are either apocryphal or vile, or the distinction between teaching about and teaching to, or that the panoply of sexual proclivities humans exhibit were not invented by post-1950s society.

But really this is wonderfully honest. As he says, our view that evidence must trump ideology when it comes to education is simply incompatible with his. The two cannot be reconciled. Which suits me just fine, because the alternative is trying to reconcile an evidence-based approach with a fantasy-approach, like teaching creationism alongside evolutionary biology. I'd rather one annihilate the other, as I'm pretty confident which will ultimately win.

I know Catholic priests with more enlightened views on this than you.

What I don't understand is how a Christian like himself can just discount his own life experiences, or not see how those experiences could differ from others:

Or, like is the case with so many "nuclear" families that are just drowning in tension and passive-aggressiveness, you could have discovered on your wedding night how sexually incompatible you were with your partner, someone who you would then be societally pressured to stay with for the rest of your life because of some unearthly vow and premise of damnation.

Also, if sex is "nothing special," then why make a big deal about sexual education? Or save it for The One? What if your wife didn't improve, because I personally know that there are people with whom sex is simply not enjoyable, nor will it ever be, because their personality doesn't allow them to explore, or because they're taught (many times by Christianity) to be ashamed of all of those dirty physically-pleasuring techniques that only exploration and education can teach?

I realize that your post is now ancient history, but the more I read your posts the more I realize how shaky your position is, and it's why the only answer to any societal question of "what is too much sex" is "who gives a shit, at least get the facts straight and don't be afraid to talk about it."

I'm honestly still really scratching my head on his "concern that sexual education could be abused."

[citation needed]

I'm busy being bewildered at a Catholic who takes the Bible literally. The general way Catholics have approached the Bible is that yes, it's sacred and yes, God inspired it and it's generally right, but it is open to interpretation. Interpretation by, you know, priests and stuff, and it's more a way to empower the clergy further than anything more enlightened, but still.

This does remind me, however. I had a couple of friends who went to Catholic high schools (I went to public school, and my public school was fan-fucking-tastic), and I found their sex ed experiences kinda interesting. Basically, they were taught almost everything I was, it was just accompanied with "but the Church is not down with that, and here is why." So the kids were getting the information they might need, coupled with the "moral" teachings. I think that's pretty much the best you could hope for when it comes to private religious schools.

I'm honestly still scratching my head as to why people are wasting time responding to HHR in any capacity. Y'all knew from the Grimoire thread that he's either an incredible idiot, dishonest, or both. He's not an established member of this community, he's unlikely to have any influence in the community where he does live, so.... who cares what he thinks or says?

Yes, he's a repulsive person. If you want more repulsive people to gawk at, let me introduce you to FreeRepublic.com. There you go: more ratfuckers than I can shake a stick at. When you consider how well developed my stick shaking muscles are, you'll realize that that's saying something!

People also used to live without the state ensuring an uncontaminated food supply or clean drinking water.

That didn't work out so great either.

Sorry, I didn't read the Grimoire thread! Although if I get a chance to post about Roman Art and Culture you better believe I'm going to take it, yo

This really has been the most fabulously erudite way for the thread to end up arguably NSFW.

Why do you physically exist? Consider this question throughout your entire genealogy.

I believe in the Separation of Santorum and Games.