Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with that. Kids need to learn about both sides of the coin. Kids today need more advanced sex education at an earlier age than the sex ed we got in school 50 and 60 years ago. We got basic sex education but nobody told us about the various sexual orientations, and for sure nobody told us about sex abuse or about predatory elders who are child sex abusers. Perhaps if children learned what sexual abuse is during sex education, and what to do about it or avoid it, there might be less victims of child sex abuse. Since children with more well informed awareness about sex abuse may be less likely to be easily misled, guilt-tripped or coerced by child predators.
That's a reallt stupid logical fallacy. Not wanting your children to be inculcated with certain kinds of sexual instructions doesn't make the parent a closet pedophile. Of all the nonsense arguments that the anti-Christians have cooked up, this has to be among the worst.
Need I remind you that one of the Ontario Liberal ministers responsible for the new sex-ed curriculum was convicted for child porn?
Quote:
I sometimes wonder if some of the people who complain the loudest about children getting sex education at school are themselves predators who are guilty of sex abuse of children. Child sex abusers would have more to lose on a personal level, their purpose would be defeated if children are better educated and more aware of the facts and are thus better prepared to recognize, avoid and report predatory behaviour of abusers.
The object is to teach children about the real world, both good and bad. If you're teaching them about sexual orientations, it's good to teach them that there are good ones and bad ones.
This statement alone shows the complete lack of information or even a basic understanding of the definition of the term "sexual orientation" - "exual orientation is the preferred term used when referring to an individual's physical and/or emotional attractionn to the same and/or opposite gender.
No, transgender is NOT a sexual orientation - it is the state of one's gender identity or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex. In other words, it is one's gender identity, irrespective of one's attraction to people of the same or opposite gender.
No, pedophalia is also NOT a sexual orientation - it commonly defined as a psychiatric disorder that is almost always criminally banned in societies around the world.
You make it sound like schools should teach homosexuality AND pedophalia all in the same context, as if they are two sides of the same coin. If you want to teach pedophalia, then why not teach the hundreds of other criminal-sexual behaviors? This is a sex-ed course teaching elementary school children to respect their peers with gay and bisexual parents, not a criminology course analyzing mental disorder wacko cases.
That's a reallt stupid logical fallacy. Not wanting your children to be inculcated with certain kinds of sexual instructions doesn't make the parent a closet pedophile. Of all the nonsense arguments that the anti-Christians have cooked up, this has to be among the worst.
Wait ... ! What .... ?! Are you telling me you've heard this theory before? That there are other people who think the same thing? I thought of that all on my own and without ever hearing it from anyone else. However, if you say there are other people who also suspect the same thing of some of the louder objectors then that's just confirmation for me that there's probably something to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken S.
Need I remind you that one of the Ontario Liberal ministers responsible for the new sex-ed curriculum was convicted for child porn?
I don't follow Ontario political goings-on all that much so I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me. It makes sense to me that someone in a political position who's guilty of a crime is going to say and do things that are in opposition to their crime to make themselves look upstanding and beyond suspicion.
No, pedophalia is also NOT a sexual orientation - it commonly defined as a psychiatric disorder that is almost always criminally banned in societies around the world.
You make it sound like schools should teach homosexuality AND pedophalia all in the same context, as if they are two sides of the same coin. If you want to teach pedophalia, then why not teach the hundreds of other criminal-sexual behaviors? This is a sex-ed course teaching elementary school children to respect their peers with gay and bisexual parents, not a criminology course analyzing mental disorder wacko cases.
What about zoophilia? Is it a psychiatric disorder? Here in British Columbia homosexuality was listed a psychiatric disorder until about 5 years ago. We now know better. Same goes for pedophilia. We know today that it's an orientation just like heterosexuality and homosexuality. You don't seem to be up on things, that's why we need to education the future generations about sex, and what is good and bad. Pedophilia is bad because it causes harm to others. Children should be taught this, and also to watch out for pedophiles who might exploit them.
I suspect that the reason you are scared to touch this one is that you know full well that the curriculum was developed by a pedophile who is hell bent on grooming young children for further exploitation. In order to throw it back in the whacko's face who invented it, a small component to warn children of sexual exploitation should be required.
Well, there is that too, but how many years has it been now since homosexuality has been accepted as normal and kids have been made aware of that? I recall asking my sister about stuff like this a few years back and she says it still goes on. I said how can it when supposedly there's a zero tolerance policy against bullying, and she says it does. Does that go on in your kids' school?
.
They don't talk about it much but they're still in the pre-teen years really and still young for talk about dating and such.
Also, I do have contacts with older teens via my kids' activities and it does seem that gay teens are much less hesitant about coming out of the closet in high school than when I was young. In the 80s and the 90s almost no one came out of the closet when they were 16-17 if I recall.
Today it seems much more common (and even borderline banal) for even 14-15 year olds to say that they're gay.
Most against the new curriculum are Hindis, Muslims, and the right wing "just say no" Christian crowd.............vocal but very much in the minority.
The one thing I have heard which seems to be a more reasoned opposition is because the curriculum seems to focus on sex as being strictly a biological function and not an emotional one as well. Apparently the word "love" isn't even mentioned once in the curriculum which is both offensive and negligent. Sex is more than just what you do but also the intimacy and emotions that go along with it.
The vast majority of people want a monogamous relationship due to the personal intimacy that is part of their bond. If emotions weren't part of the equation then people would have multiple sex partners with no more thought than picking up the groceries.
I have absolutely no problem with talking frankly about sex and would far prefer my child get it from a teacher than a porn site but discussing the emotions and intimacy that go along with sex is equally important.
Most against the new curriculum are Hindis, Muslims, and the right wing "just say no" Christian crowd.............vocal but very much in the minority.
The one thing I have heard which seems to be a more reasoned opposition is because the curriculum seems to focus on sex as being strictly a biological function and not an emotional one as well. Apparently the word "love" isn't even mentioned once in the curriculum which is both offensive and negligent. Sex is more than just what you do but also the intimacy and emotions that go along with it.
The vast majority of people want a monogamous relationship due to the personal intimacy that is part of their bond. If emotions weren't part of the equation then people would have multiple sex partners with no more thought than picking up the groceries.
I have absolutely no problem with talking frankly about sex and would far prefer my child get it from a teacher than a porn site but discussing the emotions and intimacy that go along with sex is equally important.
So two mutually consenting young adults having sex must have love and emotions attached? Who says that? Is there a regulation dictating that in order to have consenting sexual relations, you must be in love with each other? The most important aspect of the curriculum, if you actually read its content, is reinforcing the importance of mutual consent and safe sex. As long as two independent individuals agree to have sex, enjoy themselves and have good time, how is it our business to tell them that they must have some sort of emotion or love? Those are purely personal and subjective decisions that vary vastly between different individuals. Some people are looking for love. Some are simply not looking or not ready for love. Some just want to explore their sexuality. There's so many different forms of relationships.
Perhaps this is a generational thing, but most people I know around my age (mid 20s) don't place too much emphasis on the absolute need to have love or some sort of loving relationship with our sex partners. An enjoyable and mutually consenting sexual relationship may OR may not produce a long term romantic relationship, and that is absolutely fine and up to the individuals involved. People shouldn't be made to feel guilty just because they want to have sex with other consenting individuals.
I'm not at all saying it has to be moralistic or even based on any form of commitment.
My point is that sex is a major part BUT only one part of understanding human sexuality. Human sexuality does not start and finish with a quickie. To omit the emotional aspects of what most people feel when having sexual relations is nieve at best and offensive at worse.
Asexual people's sexuality may be only emotional and have no sexually intercourse at all. Many extremely disabled people are in the same situation. Understanding respect of other people beliefs innately requires an emotional understanding of their situation.
If all we want out of sex education is the sexual intercourse part then we might as well rent the kids a porno. They will find out what goes where and that will be the end of it.
We are sexual beings but we are also intelligent, emotional, and spiritual ones and the students need to understand all those 4 aspects in order to understand what healthy sexuality is.
We are sexual beings but we are also intelligent, emotional, and spiritual ones and the students need to understand all those 4 aspects in order to understand what healthy sexuality is. [Emphasis added.]
I do not much care about the debate you lot are having about the new sex education curriculum in Ontario, but I felt compelled to chime in about your claim that we are all spiritual beings. To that, I object.
I will never understand men and women who get excited about religion, about yoga, about the environment, about the wilderness, or about whatever spiritual things they are into. I have precious little need for those things to validate my existence or to make me feel better about myself and I do not understand those who do. It is fine if you want to be into them, but both being into them and their appeal is a mystery to people like me. What motivates the virtue warriors does not motivate me. I would wager that there are plenty of folks who share this kind of sentiment.
I'm not at all saying it has to be moralistic or even based on any form of commitment.
My point is that sex is a major part BUT only one part of understanding human sexuality. Human sexuality does not start and finish with a quickie. To omit the emotional aspects of what most people feel when having sexual relations is nieve at best and offensive at worse.
Asexual people's sexuality may be only emotional and have no sexually intercourse at all. Many extremely disabled people are in the same situation. Understanding respect of other people beliefs innately requires an emotional understanding of their situation.
If all we want out of sex education is the sexual intercourse part then we might as well rent the kids a porno. They will find out what goes where and that will be the end of it.
We are sexual beings but we are also intelligent, emotional, and spiritual ones and the students need to understand all those 4 aspects in order to understand what healthy sexuality is.
People, please, for the love of the good lord, actually read the contents of the new curriculum before you comment. NO where in the old or new curriculum is the actual "technique" or "act" of sexual intercourse taught. No, teachers will NOT be teaching kids how to have sex, how to masturbate, or how to use lubricants. So, please, actually take sometime and read the new curriculum as educated and informed citizens before blasting things that have no basis in fact.
In the 239 pages of the new curriculum, there are 10 mentions of the world "sexual intercourse" - and it is mentioned every single time clearly in the context of abstinence or the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases:
"Choosing to abstain from any genital contact; choosing to abstain from having vaginal or anal intercourse" - as well as requiring teachers to clearly state the importance mutual consent and understanding between two sexual partners. Pg. 195.
Here is the exact word for word answer prompt that all teachers are required to provide when asked about sexual intercourse: "Engaging in sexual activities like oral sex, vaginal intercourse, and anal intercourse means that you can be infected with an STI. If you do not have sex, you do not need to worry about getting an STI." Pg. 196.
Some people claim that the curriculum is some kind of Kama Sutra manual, or some kind of "porno" guide book to teach kids how to masturbate. Well, the word "masturbating" is mentioned only once within the 239 page curriculum. Teachers are required to provide the following response, only IF asked about masturbation in class: "Things like wet dreams or vaginal lubrication are normal and happen as a result of physical changes with puberty. Exploring one’s body by touching or masturbating is something that many people do and find pleasurable. It is common and is not harmful and is one way of learning about your body."
I find it highly hypocritical and borderline absurd that some parents forbid their kids to learn that these acts are perfectly healthy and normal when some parents themselves are/were routine consumers of porno content.
In fact, in the new curriculum, sexual abstinence is being taught as the preferred choice for all young adults starting in grades 6 and higher.
So people, please, be an informed citizen for once and actually read the document before taking to the streets and causing traffic chaos for half the city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
