Facebook, kids and public schools

[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.