Facebook, kids and public schools

[VRM]

Originally Posted by TButtrick

First, you seem to be aware that a certain dose of sex education might reduce teen pregnancy. Given this knowledge, are you not capable yourself of "telling" or "teaching" your children what YOU think is the appropriate level of their understanding of sex? You really need some outside governing group to make that decision for you?

Second, did you think that this quote meant the IPPF would "tell" them the pleasures of sex in Sunday School or Catholic School?

"Young people’s sexuality is still contentious for many religious institutions,” the report says. “Fundamentalist and other religious groups — the Catholic Church and madrasas (Islamic schools) for example — have imposed tremendous barriers that prevent young people, particularly, from obtaining information and services related to sex and reproduction. Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex.”

Further, what did you think this statement meant?

"A new Planned Parenthood report advocates telling children as young as 10 about the pleasures of sex and undermines religious taboos against premarital sex"

Did you think the IPPF was just suggesting that parents "tell" their children as young as ten about the pleasures of sex? We're talking about The Pleasures of Sex as being one of many topics included in Sex Education. I didn't suggest banning Sex Education but questioning the topic of The Pleasures of Sex being included for "children as young as ten". Besides, the first time they masturbate, they'll have learned a whole lot more about the pleasures of sex than any school can teach.

You can hide behind technicalities if you wish but you know darn well what I was basing my argument on.

You are kidding, right? What you posted was an editorial NOT the actual report. The actual report is called 'Stand and Deliver'. Again, give me the link of the report that you read so I can see if it is the same one that I am referring to.

The editorial you posted made all kinds of incorrect conclusions and completely bogus statements because they do not seem to have understood the actual report. It does not seem that you have understood it either. Go look at page 10 and the side note called 'Defining adolescence', and then go back and re-read the entire report - all 44 pages - and then tell me what page the part about teaching 10 year olds about the pleasures of sex shows up on.

You were basing your argument on someones incorrect opinion about what the report said, rather than the report itself. If you consider that a technicality...

Steve

[Wayne Maybury]

I was going to ask how this got onto conservatives versus liberals but I will keep out of that.

One of the biggest problems the younger members of our society face is recognizing that there are consequences to their actions. It appears that a high percentage of the youth in North America seem to completely disregard this fact. They seem to think that they can do whatever they want and there will never be any consequences.

Wayne

[Tommy]

Originally Posted by Wayne Maybury

One of the biggest problems the younger members of our society face is recognizing that there are consequences to their actions. It appears that a high percentage of the youth in North America seem to completely disregard this fact. They seem to think that they can do whatever they want and there will never be any consequences.

Wayne

Wayne,

I too was very frustrated by the slow pace at which my son learned to consider consequences, until I read the results of research into development of the human brain. It seems that the ability to weigh consequences is one of the last skills developed by most humans, and many of them do not reach that level until their mid 20s. Of course we've all seen examples of people who never developed that ability.

[Wayne Maybury]

Originally Posted by Tommy

Wayne,

I too was very frustrated by the slow pace at which my son learned to consider consequences, until I read the results of research into development of the human brain. It seems that the ability to weigh consequences is one of the last skills developed by most humans, and many of them do not reach that level until their mid 20s. Of course we've all seen examples of people who never developed that ability.

Tommy, I hear you but I guess what I wanted to say was that children today tend to be very sheltered from any sort of responsibility. If something goes wrong it is always the fault of someone else. The kid does poorly in his/her exams, it is the teacher's fault. The fact that the kid spent hours in front of the TV or computer instead of studying is forgotten. We were not angels but if we got caught doing something wrong at school, the last thing we wanted was for our parents to find out because that was worse than whatever disipline we got at school. We learned about consequences very quickly.

The wife of a friend of mine was a high school teacher in upstate New York. She enjoyed her teaching career until about 10 years ago when she just couldn't wait until she could take early retirement. Many of the kids were verbally abusive and some bordered on being physically abusive. If a teacher did anything that the kid didn't like, the parents would come to the school raising hell instead of doing a decent job bringing up their children. She said some of the kids were bad, but some of the parents were worse as "little Johnny" could do no wrong.

Wayne

[TButtrick]

Originally Posted by VRM

You are kidding, right? What you posted was an editorial NOT the actual report. The actual report is called 'Stand and Deliver'. Again, give me the link of the report that you read so I can see if it is the same one that I am referring to.

The editorial you posted made all kinds of incorrect conclusions and completely bogus statements because they do not seem to have understood the actual report. It does not seem that you have understood it either. Go look at page 10 and the side note called 'Defining adolescence', and then go back and re-read the entire report - all 44 pages - and then tell me what page the part about teaching 10 year olds about the pleasures of sex shows up on.

You were basing your argument on someones incorrect opinion about what the report said, rather than the report itself. If you consider that a technicality...

Steve

I suspect the editorial I posted (one of many on the same subject drawing the same conclusion) made the conclusion from the statement on page 28.

Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex and limited guidelines for sexual education often focus on abstinence before marriage (although evidence shows this strategy has been ineffective in many settings). The reality is, young people are sexual beings and many of them are religious as well. There is a need for pragmatism, to address life as it is and not as it might be in an ideal world.

Whereas the IPPF repeatedly defines "young people" as ages 10-24. page 10 per your earlier sidebar reference.

I read that as the IPPF being critical and NOT SUPPORTING of religous teachings that "deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex" and continuing in the next sentence by defining the group of people who are being denied as "young people" (ages10-24). It infers that "young people" (ages10-24) are sexual beings and that the topic of sexual pleasures is within the realm of their education. It starts at home is my argument and it starts when I say it starts.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by TButtrick

I suspect the editorial I posted (one of many on the same subject drawing the same conclusion) made the conclusion from the statement on page 28.

Currently, many religious teachings deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex and limited guidelines for sexual education often focus on abstinence before marriage (although evidence shows this strategy has been ineffective in many settings). The reality is, young people are sexual beings and many of them are religious as well. There is a need for pragmatism, to address life as it is and not as it might be in an ideal world.

Whereas the IPPF repeatedly defines "young people" as ages 10-24. page 10 per your earlier sidebar reference.

I read that as the IPPF being critical and NOT SUPPORTING of religous teachings that "deny the pleasurable and positive aspects of sex" and continuing in the next sentence by defining the group of people who are being denied as "young people" (ages10-24). It infers that "young people" (ages10-24) are sexual beings and that the topic of sexual pleasures is within the realm of their education. It starts at home is my argument and it starts when I say it starts.

The bottom of that sidebar says:
'Policies and programmes for young people should focus
not so much on age, but on the specific developmental
needs and rights of individuals as they transition from
childhood to adulthood.'

Your inference is completely invented. They do not define any specific ages for any educational programme.