|
Sex education in schools (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I think sexual education should start as early as 7 and all the way to 15 at least. Obviously starting out with the anatomy, moving up to the functions (periods, masturbation etc.) and then onto intercourse, oral/anal sex, STDs and how to be safe. Although I think it would awesome if they discussed sexual positions, fetishes and sex toys etc. too, I don't think that will ever happen, or at least not any time soon. |
Well, I respectfully disagree. Why would anyone want to rob children of their childhood by introducing such a complex and often times burdening concept such as sex?
13, I'm more comfortable, but highly ambivalent.
As I said, I'm not against the teaching of anatomy for children who are in their preteens. A brush upon the "intercourse" subject is, of course, necessary, because, as you said, the insinuation then becomes that sex is a dirty thing. It is, however, not the subject we want our teenagers TOO preoccupied with; and therefore we should introduce a more thorough study of the subject much later in high school.
But, again, I'll maintain that Sex Ed. is pretty much useless in the long run. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
But, again, I'll maintain that Sex Ed. is pretty much useless in the long run. |
Ah, so like in African countries then? |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
But, again, I'll maintain that Sex Ed. is pretty much useless in the long run. |
*facepalm* |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Ah, so like in African countries then? |
:stongue: |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Ah, so like in African countries then? |
If you read what I've posted so far and put it into perspective, then maybe that'll answer your question. Of course I'm not saying you'll agree. |
|
|
| Lews |
| Probably because we're on different wavelengths about the nature of reality :o |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Probably because we're on different wavelengths about the nature of reality :o |
You've said nothing of substance. This whole "you're not in our reality" comment holds no weight. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
You've said nothing of substance. This whole "you're not in our reality" comment holds no weight. |
And your opinions that go completely against all studies that have been done in this area hold some weight? |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
And your opinions that go completely against all studies that have been done in this area hold some weight? |
I'm not disputing any studies. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
I'm not disputing any studies. |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
I'm not a religious zealot, but I am not impressed with scientific studies that prove that education to humans in certain areas that, really, require a lack of stupidity is beneficial. |
What? |
|
|
| Lews |
| You are aware you make no sense whatsoever, right? |
|
|
| R.j. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
What? |
Did you read that correctly? |
|
|
|
|
