Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Grey Templar wrote: All methods need to be taught, including abstinence as an option(and the only 100% safe option).
Here's my question. Why? Why even mention the word Abstinence at all? Sex isn't a bad thing. it's part of life and human relationships and most people want to have it eventually, right? Talking about it by focusing on the negatives, which is all abstinence education really is, is counter productive and potentially damaging.
If we're actually teaching teens what sex is, consent, what contraceptives do, the risks of STDs, it should go without saying that not having sex results in no pregnancy and near no STD transmission (to be fair, we should mention in classes that some STDs can be transferred by other means than sex acts). Unless we're teaching some special ed kids, why bother? I know we expect little of teenagers but I don't think they're so stupid they can't figure that effects won't happen if the cause never occurs.
It should be taught precisely because it has the lowest risk of transferring STDs and causing unwanted pregnancy, which I think is the goal of Sex Education is it not? Which also makes it a nice baseline to compare other methods to.
Sure, it might seem like they should be able to infer it, but really we can't assume anything. Especially given some of the stupid aforementioned myths about sex(standing up/washing afterwards) that are propagated I don't think we can assume they'll always put 2 and 2 together. Better to overstate something than understate it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Abstinence has a place, but teaching it just doesn't make any sense in sex education.
It's like going to a gun safety class only to be taught that you should never buy a gun, touch a gun, or shoot a gun.
Not really. Abstinence doesn't mean you will never have sex ever, it means you will be waiting for someone who you are going to commit to long term. Which makes both individuals in the relationship safer. It also demonstrates your commitment to each other and your desire to protect them.
If you get an incurable STD because you were having casual sex, but then later you finally meet someone you want to spend the rest of your life with you have put them at a risk for the rest of your lives together. Pretty crappy thing to do to your soulmate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/22 05:29:02
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
No. God no that's the mentality that is wrong with our sex ed right now!
Sex ed should be about sex, not all the reasons you shouldn't have it (ever. never ever. Don't. Puppies die because you touch yourself!). Sex is part of human life and relationships. Sex ed should be about that. Yeah, there are risks and consequences, but those shouldn't be the focus of a really important conversation for people on their way to adulthood. It's really rich that a country with a sky rocketing divorce rate and an ever increasing age of marriage to preach to kids how they should wait for someone they will 'commit to.' That isn't the world we live in. Why the hell would we try to tell kids that it is?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/22 05:27:57
It should be taught precisely because it has the lowest risk of transferring STDs and causing unwanted pregnancy, which I think is the goal of Sex Education is it not? Which also makes it a nice baseline to compare other methods to.
Sure, it might seem like they should be able to infer it, but really we can't assume anything. Especially given some of the stupid aforementioned myths about sex(standing up/washing afterwards) that are propagated I don't think we can assume they'll always put 2 and 2 together. Better to overstate something than understate it.
The problem is, an "abstinence only" course offering has been proven, time and again (see: Crane High, Crane Texas; Montgomery, AL which is the STD capital of the US) and I find it highly ironic that it's the bible belt of all parts of the US that has these major STD problems. It isn't the "dirty liberal" north what with all those loose/free-morals liberal wimmen running around.
Yes, obviously in any k-12 education involving sex ed, we should mention abstinence only... but frankly, it should be added at the end. Teacher's showing their classes pictures of cauliflower junk, yellow oozing discharges and the like are much more effective, especially when they follow up with, "Don't want any of that stuff? Don't have sex" Naturally, we simply know that this isn't going to NOT happen, so if you provide people with actual scientifically based information to give them better tools by which to make decisions, you may start seeing better numbers on the STD front.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Pretty sure Sex Education is about protecting yourself and others from the dangers. If you want to learn how to have good sex there are other avenues for that, which does not require a class.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
LordofHats wrote: It's really rich that a country with a sky rocketing divorce rate and an ever increasing age of marriage to preach to kids how they should wait for someone they will 'commit to.' That isn't the world we live in. Why the hell would we try to tell kids that it is?
Erm.... where are you getting info saying the divorce rate is still skyrocketing? Everything I've seen has said it's leveled off quite a bit since the 90s. And some of the most recent articles I've browsed through are showing that fewer people are getting married in the first place.
@Grey Templar.... Sex ed is/should be about what your body goes through in puberty, what potential outcomes there are in engaging in sexual activities (pregnancy, STDs..... death) I've yet to hear of a single middle/high school sex ed course that had a block of instruction on "how to find the G-spot" or "the proper way to give head to a guy"
Grey Templar wrote: Pretty sure Sex Education is about protecting yourself and others from the dangers.
Code for: sex is bad Timmy. Don't do it and here are all the reasons why. Yes I know this is hyperbole, but its what you're asking for whether you realize it or not.
If you want to learn how to have good sex there are other avenues for that,
So, that's how you see it? We either tell kids sex is bad and they shouldn't have it or we're teaching them how to be good at it? I feel like there's another option here somewhere...
which does not require a class.
That we have sex ed in schools in the first place is a pretty good sign that there isn't. Parents seem remarkably unwilling to actually talk to their kids about this in general. It would be great if they weren't (my parents were useless on this subject. To this day, I think my mom is shocked and ashamed my sister has sex. She's 23). Someone has to actually has to have this conversation and America has shirked that responsibility onto the government. To be fair, I'm not sure I'd even trust parents to be any good at talking to their kids about this subject, because we both know there are plenty of people who will be even crazier and less effective than sex ed we have right now is.
LordofHats wrote: It's really rich that a country with a sky rocketing divorce rate and an ever increasing age of marriage to preach to kids how they should wait for someone they will 'commit to.' That isn't the world we live in. Why the hell would we try to tell kids that it is?
Erm.... where are you getting info saying the divorce rate is still skyrocketing? Everything I've seen has said it's leveled off quite a bit since the 90s. And some of the most recent articles I've browsed through are showing that fewer people are getting married in the first place.
To be honest I haven't look it up recently I just know that we have a high divorce rate, people are getting married and having kids at a later age (if at all), and very few of us end up spending our lives with our first love.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/11/22 05:38:23
@Grey Templar.... Sex ed is/should be about what your body goes through in puberty, what potential outcomes there are in engaging in sexual activities (pregnancy, STDs..... death) I've yet to hear of a single middle/high school sex ed course that had a block of instruction on "how to find the G-spot" or "the proper way to give head to a guy"
Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
Grey Templar wrote: Pretty sure Sex Education is about protecting yourself and others from the dangers.
Code for: sex is bad Timmy. Don't do it and here are all the reasons why. Yes I know this is hyperbole, but its what you're asking for whether you realize it or not.
Nope. Not at all. Its more like giving the factual information about the dangers and the options to protecting yourself.
Sex Education should also include things on Consent and all that side of it too.
Anything beyond that isn't something the schools should be teaching.
That we have sex ed in schools in the first place is a pretty good sign that there isn't. Parents seem remarkably unwilling to actually talk to their kids about this in general. It would be great if they weren't (my parents were useless on this subject. To this day, I think my mom is shocked and ashamed my sister has sex. She's 23). Someone has to actually has to have this conversation and America has shirked that responsibility onto the government. To be fair, I'm not sure I'd even trust parents to be any good at talking to their kids about this subject, because we both know there are plenty of people who will be even crazier and less effective than sex ed we have right now is.
I agree that it is a huge failing of parents around the country. It really is unfortunate, and a symptom of the larger parenting problem that is going on right now. But I also think that letting the government teach it to our children is itself a problem. More parents should be horrified at this idea and step up and do their jobs.
To be honest I haven't look it up recently I just know that we have a high divorce rate, people are getting married and having kids at a later age (if at all), and very few of us end up spending our lives with our first love.
Which is a terrible thing. Again, I blame the parenting problem.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/11/22 06:07:36
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
No. It should be about biology, psychology, and helping kids transition into being adults by giving them an idea what adult relationships can be like. What's okay. What isn't. What bad things can happen. What good things can happen. An actual education, not dogmatic ideology about commitment and saving one self when the reality already is that few people have sex for the first time with the person they end up marrying. A and B are not the only options.
Its more like giving the factual information about the dangers and the options to protecting yourself.
There's this thing writers look out for called Unfortunate Implications. If you teach a class focusing on protecting yourself from danger, then you're creating an implication that sex is bad and bad things will happen if you have it.
I agree that it is a huge failing of parents around the country. It really is unfortunate, and a symptom of the larger parenting problem that is going on right now. But I also think that letting the government teach it to our children is itself a problem. More parents should be horrified at this idea and step up and do their jobs.
But we both know they won't. Meanwhile, kids are getting bad information that will cause problems for them in the future. On top of that I have a really big hang up about parents forcing their own personal baggage on their kids. While it would be great for parents to step up and talk real about sex and relationships and you know, life, I don't think either of us are that naive, and while people sit and debate what's right and what's wrong like ideology is all that matters, people are having real problems.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
No. It should be about biology, psychology, and helping kids transition into being adults by giving them an idea what adult relationships can be like. What's okay. What isn't. What bad things can happen. What good things can happen. An actual education, not dogmatic ideology about commitment and saving one self when the reality already is that few people have sex for the first time with the person they end up marrying. A and B are not the only options.
I think this type of attitude is actually why we've lost such a good thing. We just became apathetic and decided it was ok to give up.
We should help people with their problems of course, but lets not pretend that its ok.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
We should help people with their problems of course, but lets not pretend that its ok.
Why isn't it okay? Is the world going to end if Tom and Jane really enjoy being around each other and want to have sex, but don't want to commit to anything long term? is that going to doom society? I think you have it backwards. We take all this baggage about love, marriage, and commitment and bombard ourselves and our children with it. Then our children grow up and realize that after driving off into the sunset, Indiana Jones and Raven had a whole bunch of arguments and broke up over it, because relationships aren't just kissing, and telling the other person you love them.
And that just gets back to my other point. Do kids really have time for the rest of us to debate the morality of casual sex and serial monogamy?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/22 06:23:50
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I think setting them up to have, expect, and desire a healthy long term relationship is best for society in general. We'd have more stable intact homes for children to grow up in, which in turn would keep propagating.
They should be informed its not just kissing and having fun. Its a serious thing that kids need to be taught about more than anything else. I think its something we can't afford to not teach children about. Especially if they don't have good examples at home, the cycle needs to be broken.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
No. It should be about biology, psychology, and helping kids transition into being adults by giving them an idea what adult relationships can be like. What's okay. What isn't. What bad things can happen. What good things can happen. An actual education, not dogmatic ideology about commitment and saving one self when the reality already is that few people have sex for the first time with the person they end up marrying. A and B are not the only options.
Exactly. Sex Ed should be about sex, period. A comprehensive sex education program should cover:
(Seriously, we are all adults here, so I would think we can handle some frank talk about sex)
Spoiler:
- the mechanics of sex, both physical and emotional
- the risks of sex and how they can be minimized
- both of those should include the full range of physical activities that are often pursuit by "abstinence only" kids that end up thinking that they are not having "sex": making out vs outercourse vs oral sex vs anal sex vs vaginal sex. Does it have the potential to be crude and will it be hilarious to a bunch of pre-teens and teenagers? Sure, we would all expect that. But the truth is that a lot of kids that think they are being abstinent because they are not sticking a penis in a vagina are still engaging in all those other activities because they are not sex. Going down on each other is not sex, so it's okay. You can't get pregnant via anal sex, so you don't need to wear a condom. You are wearing your panties so if we are dry humping it's okay and I can ejaculate on your panties because nothing can happen because "it's not sex". So sex education should in fact include talking about how to have sex, the different ways of having sex, and the different options for having safer sex.
- once you cover the whole "how to have sex and how to have safer sex if you are having sex" thing, you should also include the role of sex in their life as well as in their relationships
- make sure that they know that it is their own decision if they have sex and that it is always okay to decide not to have it and that abstinence is in fact an option if they so desire. Don't make it out to be this awesome thing and don't make it out to be a weird scary thing either. Just explain it for what it is: some people wait to have sex until they are married, some people wait until they have someone that they feel really special about, some people think sex is a tool.
- talk about consent and that sex is not just about you but also about your partner and that both of you need to be on the same page about deciding to even have sex as well as having a plan about having safe sex if you do.
- talk about the emotional impact of sex and how it can change a relationship and how it can also lead problems.
- Talk about pornography and how it can lead to unrealistic expectations about sex (about having sex to begin with as well as actual expectations about what sex is like and what is okay and not okay, aka "no Timmy, you can't just go from vaginal sex to just surprise Sue by having surprise anal without letting her know before hand or preparing for it. And whatever you do, don't just go right back to vaginal sex without cleaning that penis. ")
Really, just treat it like a gun safety course:
Yes Billy, they [guns/penises] are dangerous and they can kill you and others You should store it safely and never aim it at anything that you are not prepared to kill. But if used responsibly it can also be a lot of fun and you can do a lot of shooting with that thing. Now Billy, there is a large variety of them and that's okay. Some people like the small ones that fit even the smallest hands and they can be pretty small or they can be thick and stubby but some of them are also long and heavy. I'm not a big fan of that particular style, but some people really like a double barrel and really enjoy an over/under, and we shouldn't judge them for that. Now there are people out there that will tell you that it's a dangerous thing and you should never even handle it, and it is okay if you don't. But if you do just know that there are ways to do it in a safe manner and that as long as you are responsible there will be less of a risk of anybody getting hurt.
Yes Billy, they [guns/penises] are dangerous and they can kill you and others You should store it safely and never aim it at anything that you are not prepared to kill. But if used responsibly it can also be a lot of fun and you can do a lot of shooting with that thing. Now Billy, there is a large variety of them and that's okay. Some people like the small ones that fit even the smallest hands and they can be pretty small or they can be thick and stubby but some of them are also long and heavy. I'm not a big fan of that particular style, but some people really like a double barrel and really enjoy an over/under, and we shouldn't judge them for that. Now there are people out there that will tell you that it's a dangerous thing and you should never even handle it, and it is okay if you don't. But if you do just know that there are ways to do it in a safe manner and that as long as you are responsible there will be less of a risk of anybody getting hurt.
I feel like this is a concept you need to pitch to College Humor D
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/22 06:56:24
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, thats what it should be about. LordofHats was making it should like it should be about having Sex, not how to protect yourself from STDs, use a condom, or about your body changes.
No. It should be about biology, psychology, and helping kids transition into being adults by giving them an idea what adult relationships can be like. What's okay. What isn't. What bad things can happen. What good things can happen. An actual education, not dogmatic ideology about commitment and saving one self when the reality already is that few people have sex for the first time with the person they end up marrying. A and B are not the only options.
Exactly. Sex Ed should be about sex, period. A comprehensive sex education program should cover:
(Seriously, we are all adults here, so I would think we can handle some frank talk about sex)
Spoiler:
- the mechanics of sex, both physical and emotional
- the risks of sex and how they can be minimized
- both of those should include the full range of physical activities that are often pursuit by "abstinence only" kids that end up thinking that they are not having "sex": making out vs outercourse vs oral sex vs anal sex vs vaginal sex. Does it have the potential to be crude and will it be hilarious to a bunch of pre-teens and teenagers? Sure, we would all expect that. But the truth is that a lot of kids that think they are being abstinent because they are not sticking a penis in a vagina are still engaging in all those other activities because they are not sex. Going down on each other is not sex, so it's okay. You can't get pregnant via anal sex, so you don't need to wear a condom. You are wearing your panties so if we are dry humping it's okay and I can ejaculate on your panties because nothing can happen because "it's not sex". So sex education should in fact include talking about how to have sex, the different ways of having sex, and the different options for having safer sex.
- once you cover the whole "how to have sex and how to have safer sex if you are having sex" thing, you should also include the role of sex in their life as well as in their relationships
- make sure that they know that it is their own decision if they have sex and that it is always okay to decide not to have it and that abstinence is in fact an option if they so desire. Don't make it out to be this awesome thing and don't make it out to be a weird scary thing either. Just explain it for what it is: some people wait to have sex until they are married, some people wait until they have someone that they feel really special about, some people think sex is a tool.
- talk about consent and that sex is not just about you but also about your partner and that both of you need to be on the same page about deciding to even have sex as well as having a plan about having safe sex if you do.
- talk about the emotional impact of sex and how it can change a relationship and how it can also lead problems.
- Talk about pornography and how it can lead to unrealistic expectations about sex (about having sex to begin with as well as actual expectations about what sex is like and what is okay and not okay, aka "no Timmy, you can't just go from vaginal sex to just surprise Sue by having surprise anal without letting her know before hand or preparing for it. And whatever you do, don't just go right back to vaginal sex without cleaning that penis. ")
Really, just treat it like a gun safety course:
Yes Billy, they [guns/penises] are dangerous and they can kill you and others You should store it safely and never aim it at anything that you are not prepared to kill. But if used responsibly it can also be a lot of fun and you can do a lot of shooting with that thing. Now Billy, there is a large variety of them and that's okay. Some people like the small ones that fit even the smallest hands and they can be pretty small or they can be thick and stubby but some of them are also long and heavy. I'm not a big fan of that particular style, but some people really like a double barrel and really enjoy an over/under, and we shouldn't judge them for that. Now there are people out there that will tell you that it's a dangerous thing and you should never even handle it, and it is okay if you don't. But if you do just know that there are ways to do it in a safe manner and that as long as you are responsible there will be less of a risk of anybody getting hurt.
I think the emotional angle of how sex can change a relationship is right on the mark. We have spoken with our kids about sex almost their whole lives, starting at around age 5 with telling them their birth stories and let them digest that, answering, questions they had about it. As they grew, we added more to their knowledge until they have the full picture. We want them to know sex can be either a disaster or a blessing depending on how they approach it.
Abstinence only sex ed seems to have been cooked up with the assumption that people only have sex in marriage and that they then don't need contraception, which is a bit Catholic. It doesn't matter whether you believe in casual sex or not, eventually most people settle long term with a partner and need to use contraception or they'll be turning out kids one after the other. Most married couples use contraception.
It's very condescending and ignorant that the education system in the US takes the approach that it's primarily about telling kids not to have sex at all (because they're just having sex with anything) rather than informing people about their health options that will be useful for most of their life. That's not education, just telling people not to have sex is not teaching them about anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/22 09:23:33
I am still shocked that "abstinence" is taught at schools. Ho stupid do people assume youngsters to be that they have to explicitely be taught that "no sex = no kids"? Come on.
Then again, this comes from the same country where people suggest consent forms...
Grey Templar wrote: They should be informed its not just kissing and having fun. Its a serious thing that kids need to be taught about more than anything else. I think its something we can't afford to not teach children about. Especially if they don't have good examples at home, the cycle needs to be broken.
What exactly is wrong with having safe casual sex with no intent of a long-term relationship?
There's kind of a line here between serving the public safety\health, and using the government to push your social norms and agenda. Teaching sex ed with the idea that sex should only be in furtherance of a stable monogamous relationship seems pretty far on one side of that scale.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/22 10:42:20
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Then again, this comes from the same country where people suggest consent forms...
The irony is that consent forms began as a hyperbolic myth by conservative groups to mock the idea of affirmative consent. Then some advocacy groups and college campuses actually started to band wagon on the idea. Without intention of comedy.
Then again, this comes from the same country where people suggest consent forms...
The irony is that consent forms began as a hyperbolic myth by conservative groups to mock the idea of affirmative consent. Then some advocacy groups and college campuses actually started to band wagon on the idea. Without intention of comedy.
It's burning through my retina like an acid made of stupid.
The really sad part is as far as I can tell, colleges got behind the idea because they really don't like having to deal with sex assault/rape accusations. But a huge chunk (something like half) of assault/rape incidents on college campus' involve alcohol.
Signing a contract while drunk renders the contract invalid, so even if parties actually went through the trouble (which I'm high skeptical many do), it wouldn't preclude an accusation from being made.
Why did you even bother?! *Asking college campuses* You'd make more headway cracking down on frat parties and college drinking!
A consent form shouldn't mean squat. You're not compelled to go through with having sex afterwards. If you change your mind just seconds before or during the act and the person you're with forces you to carry on, it's still rape.
Consent form are just stupid to begin with. If you ever encounter someone with such a thing, it'd be a huge red flag as said person either is of little intelligence or a SJW (not mutually exclusive...in the contrary). Red flag is red. Not worth discussing.
What should be taught is responsible drinking. If still you wanna get totally drunk, then yeah, your decision mate.
Grey Templar wrote: They should be informed its not just kissing and having fun. Its a serious thing that kids need to be taught about more than anything else. I think its something we can't afford to not teach children about. Especially if they don't have good examples at home, the cycle needs to be broken.
What exactly is wrong with having safe casual sex with no intent of a long-term relationship?
There's kind of a line here between serving the public safety\health, and using the government to push your social norms and agenda. Teaching sex ed with the idea that sex should only be in furtherance of a stable monogamous relationship seems pretty far on one side of that scale.
Well, aside from the moral issues which is a different thing all together, there is always a danger of catching an STD. "Safe" sex implies there is no risk, which is very false. I think the term actually needs to be dropped and changed to Low Risk(IE: you are using protection). Really the only truly Safe Sex is between 2 individuals who are known to be free of STDs. And as was mentioned previously, there are many STDs which can be spread outside of direct intercourse(kissing) which a condom wouldn't fully protect you from.
There is also the emotional issue. Sex is an emotional act and engaging in it casually builds up unrealistic emotional expectations, and the danger that if one party develops a stronger connection than the other that they'll get hurt when the other person doesn't want to commit and moves on. Its playing Russian Roulette with your emotional state.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: They should be informed its not just kissing and having fun. Its a serious thing that kids need to be taught about more than anything else. I think its something we can't afford to not teach children about. Especially if they don't have good examples at home, the cycle needs to be broken.
What exactly is wrong with having safe casual sex with no intent of a long-term relationship?
There's kind of a line here between serving the public safety\health, and using the government to push your social norms and agenda. Teaching sex ed with the idea that sex should only be in furtherance of a stable monogamous relationship seems pretty far on one side of that scale.
Well, aside from the moral issues which is a different thing all together, there is always a danger of catching an STD. "Safe" sex implies there is no risk, which is very false. I think the term actually needs to be dropped and changed to Low Risk(IE: you are using protection). Really the only truly Safe Sex is between 2 individuals who are known to be free of STDs. And as was mentioned previously, there are many STDs which can be spread outside of direct intercourse(kissing) which a condom wouldn't fully protect you from.
There is also the emotional issue. Sex is an emotional act and engaging in it casually builds up unrealistic emotional expectations, and the danger that if one party develops a stronger connection than the other that they'll get hurt when the other person doesn't want to commit and moves on. Its playing Russian Roulette with your emotional state.
This is as relevant as thinking that driving is wrong because you can kill yourself on the road.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Not at all. I don't really have a choice to not drive. Its not an option. I do have a choice to not engage in casual sex with short term relationships that has a good chance of causing emotional harm.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Not at all. I don't really have a choice to not drive. Its not an option. I do have a choice to not engage in casual sex with short term relationships that has a good chance of causing emotional harm.
I wonder if there is any statistics or studies out talking about emotional effects of people being used and cast aside in such relationships. Antecdotaly speaking, I have seen people of both sexes going through severe depression from this.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Not sure, but I doubt it. There would probably be a lot of people who would simply suffer in silence because they feel that its their fault for getting attached when they "knew it was only supposed to be casual".
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Not at all. I don't really have a choice to not drive. Its not an option. I do have a choice to not engage in casual sex with short term relationships that has a good chance of causing emotional harm.
Remember kids, before you engage in casual sex with another person, make sure they know it is casual. You do not want to hurt their feelings, how would you feel if you were having sex with a person and they just up and left. Said they had no feelings for you. It would hurt. You do not want to do that to another person, just let them know first. It is the right thing to do. Now lets talk about the intracacies of relationships and what it means to devote your life to one other person. - Teacher
Some people make different choices than you do Grey Templar, but they should not be ostracized or looked down upon for it. Instead, we should prepare them for many different paths in life by giving them a full, comprehensive education where they can make well educated decisions. Instead of the "Do not have sex until you are in a committed relationship and everything will be A OK" one lane highway everybody seems to be so backed up on.
As for the argument of having parents do this vs the government. Most parents are fething idiots. They have no clue what they are doing. Why entrust everything to them when you have a public school system where you can have a class based 100% on scientific fact that will teach them about the realities of the world?
I just know that we have a high divorce rate, people are getting married and having kids at a later age (if at all), and very few of us end up spending our lives with our first love.
