Sadly I can't answer this as I don't have those beliefs. I'm just aware that people object to the teaching for various reasons, often religious. Back when I was receiving my education there was an option offered to parents to opt their children out of it, some of whom decided to take up the offer because(as was relayed to me) it was inappropriate according to their religion. I suppose they could have just been using that as an excuse for their prudish nature though.
Ah, but what created their prudish nature? A lot of religions aren't exactly known for their avant garde views on sexuality Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No question, but that still doesn't give us any right to impose on their beliefs. If they want to opt out they should have that option otherwise we'd be no better than those trying to force the 'abstinence only' policy on others who don't agree with them.
I believe that society has a right to impose education on its members, so that its members don't make terrible mistakes in their life (such as unwanted pregnancies). However, I think the debate should also be widened on another issue- what do the -children/minors- want. I have a feeling that the -children/minors- would be much less averse to better sex ed then their parents. And if I had to vote on whether I think the child or the parent should be able to decide what sex ed they should be able to have, as is the case at times in regards to whether a child/minor has an abortion, my vote is wholeheartedly for the child/minor. I've heard that the abstinence only policy is losing out because, if anything, not teaching children about contraceptive measures has apparently resulted in more teen pregnancies, not less.
Maybe having sex is cool with girls too, but with most girls I've met it's more about being seen to have a boyfriend than actually having sex.
I agree. I've got no studies to back this up; more like anecdotal experience as well. In essence, that adolescent females tend to have sex more to keep their boyfriends then because they themselves are so keen on trying it. I'm not saying that I believe that this applies to all adolescent females and I could certainly believe that they could 'get into it' after the initial part (they'd be getting older as well ofcourse).
I definitely agree. I have no research either, but judging from what a lot of girls say it is more about keeping a guy.
Okay, I just have to ask! Why does a girl want to "keep" a guy ...if not for sexual pleasures? And, yeah, the reverse question is also implied. Baron Max
Company, companionship, security. Not all guys need or even want to have sex early either, although I think this is much rarer. However, from what I've heard, guys hormones are raging at a young age, while women never get as stir crazy as guys and their peak is apparently later on in life.
LOL, what's the purpose of sexual education? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just teach kids to use birth control. Uh oh, Sarah Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalin! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We may have to agree to disagree on some points then, I don't feel we have a right to infringe on people's beliefs through force; and as the minors have legal guardians that are responsible for them, it may be their choice(see below). I must ask though, as I questioned above for the parents; likewise if the minor wants to opt out of it because of their beliefs should they be allowed to? You could be right that they are less likely to do so, but they should have the choice yes? This leads to another question, just how much responsibility, control, and influence should parents/guardians have over minors and their education? If we deem them old enough to decide their own education with regards to morality and beliefs, why still prosecute the parents when they fail to show up for school at all? Are they mature enough to decide for themselves or aren't they? I don't think we can have it both ways. This is of course an entirely seperate subject. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's a ridiculous policy as far as most people are concerned, there are very few people that it would actually work for but if it does then it's their choice. Where I draw the line is when they advocate everyone should be forced to join in on the basis of beliefs(religious or otherwise). As I say, one side has no more right to force their beliefs than the other does.
It's a mixture of both I suppose, there's a lot of one night stands or short term flings amongst the young, and most happily have sex to keep their boyfriend/girlfriend and for a bit of fun. I don't think men and women are all that different. Either that or there's a small percentage of women that REALLY get around.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh hell no, we do get stir crazy. Try getting me to concentrate on something when....you know. It's just socially unacceptable to say so. We're only allowed to want love, not sex. So girls go on about love and keep all that deadly dark sexual stuff to themselves.
Lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Grats on hitting the 3k post mark, btw Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Well in regards to hormones, women generally have less testosterone. Ofcourse, they're more sensitive to it. I don't know, I guess I grew up thinking that adolescent males had these raging hormones, not the females. Anyway, I went looking up testosterone and got this from wikipedia: "In both men and women, testosterone plays a key role in health and well-being as well as in sexual functioning. Examples include enhanced libido, increased energy, increased production of red blood cells and protection against osteoporosis. On average, an adult human male body produces about forty to sixty times more testosterone than an adult female body, but females are, from a behavioral perspective (rather than from an anatomical or biological perspective), more sensitive to the hormone.[1] However the overall ranges for male and female are very wide, such that the ranges actually overlap at the low end and high end respectively." Which, quite frankly, doesn't seem to tell me much. What I'd like to know is -how- much more sensitive women are in general and how, exactly, does it affect the libido? Also, how does society affect things? Women certainly act differently in North America then they do in Afghanistan. I definitely think that women are generally pickier about the partner(s) they're with, for what to me is an obvious evolutionary reason- men can impregnate a thousand women, but women can only have a few children and the effort is a lot greater. So they've frequently picked men who have what might be called 'doting father' qualities and this, in turn, has affected society so that there are more doting father types. Ofcourse, they also like the beguiling types and can at times be fooled into going for womanizers who won't help much if pregnancy does indeed occur. All of this is, to me, a little amusing. I like to think that I'd be a great doting father but at the same time I'm enamoured by the idea of a polyamorous lifestyle. No cheating; the rules are simply different, for both sides. I've heard of parents who have apparently done quite well in this lifestyle. I don't have a crystal ball and I don't know what my future holds but I really can't see myself giving up the polyamory ideal even if it doesn't work out quite so well for me. Anyway, in case anyone's interested, here's a little youtube show with the concept (in this case, 1 woman and 2 men): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2-MTs_Lsog&feature=channel_page
And also a fair amount of things wrong. However, I'm with BetrayerofHope- what do you suggest? Sex isn't always glorified. It's why abstinence until marriage programs still exist, although they are thankfully losing ground now as they've proven to be generally ineffective. I maintain that the main problem isn't that society as a whole is too permissive, but that society as a whole still doesn't like factually dealing with its youth concerning sexuality. I firmly believe that what is needed is better sexual education and not just sexual education per se but -relationship- education. People don't just think about sex they think about the people they want to have sex -with-. So I certainly believe that things like protective measures during sex is something that should definitely be taught in school (not as in, do this, but as in, -if- you do this, protect yourselves and here's how). But I -also- believe that students should be taught about what constitutes a healthy relationship, sexual or otherwise, and how to create and nurture such relationships.
They are frequently not taught that, actually. It's called 'abstinence until marriage'. Thankfully, it's on the wane as it has been shown to be ineffective. I think it's an option without talking to one's partner. I certainly believe it should be. A man doesn't have to be pregnant for 9 months, so it's easy for him to spout platitudes. The woman is the one who has to do the work for 9 months. You sure about that? I myself am a little interested in these abstinence until marriage courses and whether or not they actually make it clear what sex -does- other then possibly give diseases and be seen as 'bad'. Well, oral can't result in pregnancy so it should definitely be seen somewhat differently.
We don't teach that here, not in a very very long time! Our schools teach sex ed, any abstinence policies are strictly from outside of the education system. It may be different state-side(in parts) but surely they have standardised sex ed too? Surely the vast majority of 14-19 year olds know that they should use condoms when having sex(regardless of if they actually take that advice or not). I meant that a man may assume that's what's going to happen without actually discussing it, and his partner may not believe in abortion. They should be having safe sex, but regardless people need to understand they have to talk certain things through first, such as what they're going to do should a pregnancy occur. You're probably correct that some form of relationship education should occur and cover these things. Young people need to understand how hard it is to raise a child, but the truth is a lot of them are not in relationships before they have sex, so they don't talk things through. I'd go so far as to say that at that age virtually all are aware that sex is the cause of pregnancy and having sex is risking it. This is the basic that sex ed covers, beyond that the quality varies depending on location, teacher etc. Diseases is more of a grey area(see below). Exactly, but it can still pass on disease. This is where the sex ed lets people down in only covering basics, you get annoyingly frequent questions like "can I get STDs from oral?" or "can I get pregnant from oral?". It's not detailed enough that's for sure, but by 14 most kids know where babies come from and how they're made(give them some credit), they might not know it in great detail, they may even ignore it in their immaturity and say "you might get pregnant, but then again you might not", but essentially they know. One other reality is that I'm sure there are thousands of questions that could be asked about sex, it would be impossible for an education system to cover them all so we have to cover the most important and frequent ones and at some point we have to be able to point them in the right direction to learn for themselves and research it.
The bad thing is that most kids tend to fall for old wives tales. Like you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex or jumping up and down after sex keeps you from getting pregnant or if the girl's on top you can't get pregnant. Kids get stupid advice from their friends and many if not most don't really feel comfortable talking to their parents or teachers about it, so there is no one to tell them those myths are just that. My grandmother thought she wouldn't get pregnant if she ate a lot of mints and she had her first child at 16. (but I guess it doesn't count because she was married already).
cutsie why do you think i belive we should inforce MANDITORY (NO ONE can get out of it and no parent can stop there child reciving it) science based sexual eduction. And i dont just mean how to put on a condom but i mean DETAILED education. One of my partners friends belived that you could get pregant from giving a blow job, another belived thatyou couldnt get SDTs while giving head. Another belived that you could get pregnant from KISSING. This is not the fault of the adolessents, this lies squarly with the parents. Why the parents and not the education system? because i have seen SHines (the SA, sexual health organisation) course and there is no way in hell anyone would belive these myths if they had gone through it. I rember the sexual health lecture we had in grade 6 and i have always been puzzled by 1 thing. Though we went through the basics as a group, they then split us into boys and girls and went through (with us at least) basic A&P and a few other things. I have always felt it was quite stupid not to give the whole lecture to the whole class. After all most men need to know about what a period is, the reproductive cycle ect. ALL boys and girls should be taught what an IUD is just so they NEVER use one. The same is true of the girls, they need to know about the A&P of males as well. Oh and for all those people saying that the problem is that kids wernt having sex in earlier times. Are you all really that stupid? ever herd of a shot gun weding? what about the fact that most children were married off at 16? The difference is that now most people are still studying at 16 and DONT want to chose a mate. They certianly dont want to get married and then be forced to have child after child because contraception is unavaliable like it was in the 1900's
