Morality may be taught in schools as part of sex education -

Jacob · #31 05-04-2002, 02:14 PM

Its supposed to help you discover your sexuality. However i believe stories are far better than movies. But movies can be good. I dont want to be banned so i am just gonna leave it there. If anyone else wants to contribute they can indeed do so.

Gluk Schmuck · #32 05-04-2002, 02:17 PM

:

Originally posted by Jacob
Oh, and does anyone else think that being in the Porn Industry is a dirty and sorded buisness?

Nope. You should know your family are always wrong by now!

:

Originally posted by Danny
I don't think it's immoral or anything like that, I just think it's incredibly dull... What kind of sad-acts get aroused by pictures of women they will never even meet? Besides, once you've seen one hot double-penetration scene, you've seen them all...

You're right, Dan. Porn is boring. But masterbation is hardly an intellectually stimulating activity, now is it.
I think people get aroused by porn because of human biology - damn you, evolution for turning us on when we look at porn!

pinkgoth2 · #33 05-04-2002, 03:23 PM

:

Originally posted by Gluk Schmuck
I think people get aroused by porn because of human biology - damn you, evolution for turning us on when we look at porn!

It's not a curse, it's a gift. *snickers*

- TyA

Jacob · #34 05-04-2002, 05:19 PM

:

Nope. You should know your family are always wrong by now!

True, but those bastards have made me repress my sexuality abit more thanx to what they said last nite...which i cannot quite remeber since i was pissed...but it was there fault.

I dont like my family, they are the cause for my suicidal tendencies...

Majic · #35 05-04-2002, 06:12 PM

Porn is actualy quite sick. Last year there was this freak in my class who went around talking about his magzines and movies he had. The lil' pervert. Its stupid, I don't get hwo the people that publish or pose live with themselves. KNowing that you show off your body nude for entertainment without any regrets doesn't seem right. And as a side note, Aim For Sucess, a group that came to give us the "talk" at school did incoporate morals into it. Like to relize the risks and if your willing to throw away part of your life by sex. And like if you think its right to still ruin others life by STDs and such. Etc...

Jacob · #36 05-04-2002, 08:57 PM

Stop...im gonna get banned for been a bad influence, i ask one question and the whole topic gets engulfed by sinfulness...Ugh...Hostile, Sinful world. Glory to God!!

Majic · #37 05-04-2002, 09:06 PM

Ehehe

Well, is is disgusting and such, I find it hard to believe anyone would like it... And I'm stying with that.

pinkgoth2 · #38 05-05-2002, 09:27 AM

:

Originally posted by Jacob
Stop...im gonna get banned for been a bad influence, i ask one question and the whole topic gets engulfed by sinfulness...Ugh...Hostile, Sinful world. Glory to God!!

Amen, Ima Bad Influence. ^_^

- TyA

Statikk HDM · #39 05-06-2002, 10:43 PM

Morality isn't subjective. If I drown and torture babies for fun and profit, that is bad isn't it? Well, what if some of the proceeds go to save as many homeless people. For every baby brutalized, a homeless person is saved. Is that wrong? No cause everything is subjective and relative isn't it. Some people find homosexuality to be immoral. So all of a sudden morality is subjective, but one of the things morals deal with, i.e. sexuality isn't subjective? What?

Sydney · #40 05-06-2002, 10:58 PM

Statikk, lol. I like black jelly-babies, and I believe eating red jelly-babies is immoral. Is there an absolute standard of morals in regards to jelly-babies? Shall we assume I'm right and you're wrong, and that you enjoy red jelly-babies? You're a sinner!

pinkgoth2 · #41 05-07-2002, 06:02 AM

:

Originally posted by Sydney
Statikk, lol. I like black jelly-babies, and I believe eating red jelly-babies is immoral. Is there an absolute standard of morals in regards to jelly-babies? Shall we assume I'm right and you're wrong, and that you enjoy red jelly-babies? You're a sinner!

Gasp! How dare you promote the black jelly-babies! They're evil! ;)

- TyA

Statikk HDM · #42 05-07-2002, 06:56 PM

This is odiophra. Neither condemned nor commanded. So what I ask is "Is sex education a good idea?" The conclusion I reach is no. It supports things many find to be repulsive and immoral, is relativistic and servees no purpose in a school. It should not be in the curriculum, thats a joke. To say that lteaching how to put a condom on is useful so Pete can put one on and bang his girlfriend/boyfriend is good thing, whereas making standards higher, requiring more math and more science to be mandatory and actually look at someone's SAT score and grades before letting them pass is "wrong" is ludicrous.

Gluk Schmuck · #43 05-07-2002, 07:18 PM

:

Originally posted by Statikk HDM
1. It supports things many find to be repulsive and immoral

2. is relativistic and servees no purpose in a school.

3. To say that lteaching how to put a condom on is useful so Pete can put one on and bang his girlfriend/boyfriend is good thing, whereas making standards higher, requiring more math and more science to be mandatory and actually look at someone's SAT score and grades before letting them pass is "wrong" is ludicrous.

1. These people are idiots if they find sex immoral.

2. It lowers the amount of unwanted pregnancys.

3. If Pete can't put a condom on then he is more likely to make somebody pregnant by accident and more likely to transmit STIs.

Jacob · #44 05-07-2002, 07:26 PM

I dont get that...was that Stad trying to be sarcastic? Or was he being serious?

Gluk Schmuck · #45 05-07-2002, 07:50 PM

:

Originally posted by Jacob
I dont get that...was that Stad trying to be sarcastic? Or was he being serious?

Half the time I don't know what he's saying nevermind whether he's being sarcastic or not.

Statikk HDM · #46 05-07-2002, 10:35 PM

Stats about "education" lowering pregnancy? Where did stats go, Here stats, stats, stats, don't hide, show yourself! You know its really odd, but stats usually doesn't show himself around here often, especially when stats is mentioned. What friggin' stats!

Gluk Schmuck · #47 05-08-2002, 12:23 PM

:

Originally posted by Statikk HDM
Stats about "education" lowering pregnancy? Where did stats go, Here stats, stats, stats, don't hide, show yourself! You know its really odd, but stats usually doesn't show himself around here often, especially when stats is mentioned. What friggin' stats!

A prime example.

Jacob · #48 05-08-2002, 04:21 PM

:

This is odiophra. Neither condemned nor commanded. (1)So what I ask is "Is sex education a good idea?" (2)The conclusion I reach is no.(3) It supports things many find to be repulsive and immoral,(4) is relativistic and servees no purpose in a school. (5)It should not be in the curriculum,(6) thats a joke.(7) To say that lteaching how to put a condom on is useful so Pete can put one on and bang his girlfriend/boyfriend is good thing, whereas making standards higher, requiring more math and more science to be mandatory and actually look at someone's SAT score and grades before letting them pass is "wrong" is ludicrous.

(1) - And, do we care what you "Ask"!?...Nope

(2) - Hey...thats the same conclusion i met with the above!! (Surprising enuff!!)

(3) - The people who find it 'Repulsive' and 'Immoral' are the people who cant get any and when they do its missionary style all the time. They may also be old...since sex was a 'taboo' subject in the past. Also thats fecking ludricous...wot retard thinks its 'Immoral'!! let alone repulsive!

(4) - If you had my family you would be thinking diff...my family never taught me about sex...thankfully i had skool and my frends to fill me in. Do u kn0 how embarassing it is to not know what 'Shagging' is when your in yr 4 upwards!!

(5) - Freak.

(6) - Im glad you are.

(7) - And if that kid 'Pete' didn't put one on he would either get her pregnant or catch something. Its a good thing to teach this, although most teens know EVERYTHING about sex from a early age...such as myself. And what do you mean by 'Making standards higher'? Science shouldn't be mandatory, maths should however. I will explain later...i am tired and need alkohol...goodbye

Statikk HDM · #49 05-09-2002, 10:31 PM

Frikkin' aye! I'm a freak! Well, i refuse to go haywire and call you a bunch of names, that only takes me to your level.

Sydney · #50 05-10-2002, 06:26 AM

Statikk does have a point though, although I wonder if I'm correct in determining what his point may be.

Is it possible that sex education encourages children to become sexually active earlier? I'm sure it certainly raises a student's curiosities. Personally, I don't think high school students should be sexually active until the last two years of high school - at the earliest.

pinkgoth2 · #51 05-10-2002, 11:50 AM

:

Originally posted by Sydney
Personally, I don't think high school students should be sexually active until the last two years of high school - at the earliest.

Why do you think that? What's the reason behind it? *wondering*

Also, I'd think not telling people about it makes them more curious. I myself am more curious about things I know the term of and nothing else. *shrug*

- TyA

Gluk Schmuck · #52 05-10-2002, 12:22 PM

:

Originally posted by Sydney
Is it possible that sex education encourages children to become sexually active earlier? I'm sure it certainly raises a student's curiosities.

If I know everything about a subject then I'm not curious. If I know nothing about a subject then I'm not curious. If I know a little about a subject, I'm often curious.
And children will hear things from their friends and will know a little about a subject. Tell them everything and they won't be curious enough to have sex to satisfy their curiosity.

Sydney · #53 05-10-2002, 12:41 PM

Something like sex can hardly be thrown in the same barrel as "every other subject". I don't think curiosity about sex is something that subsides merely when one is told about it. If a class is taught about chocolate; it's flavour, history, methods of production, etc, it makes more sense that they will want to taste it. Simple descriptions wont be enough, I'm afraid. Your logic doesn't seem to work here, Gluk Schmuck.

:

Why do you think that? What's the reason behind it? *wondering*

I just don't think having sex id something that kids of that age should be dealing with. There are more important things to be working at when you're that age. Whatever happened to the time when being children meant being children?

Jacob · #54 05-10-2002, 04:21 PM

:

I just don't think having sex id something (1)that kids of that age should be dealing with. (2)There are more important things to be working at when you're that age. (3)Whatever happened to the time when being children meant being children?

(1) - What age? 12-14?

(2) - Tell the kids who are overly 'active' that.

(3) Those times have been burnt to sinders since Satan wrapped his cruel claws around the childrens hearts and burned their innocence out of them...

I was in yr 4 when i can actually remember it coming into convo. I dont think it was full scale sex talk but i remember talking about it odd times. Then more in yr 6 as we learned what 'Virgin' meant and sex was a sorded thing that had to be laughed and sniggered at. Then yr 8 were i sat with a group of lads and lass' talking about it (Cant divulge th0...id get banned) then more and more. Now im in yr 11 its like "Yeh...sex...sure id like it. But i aint too bothered about it." Others however still have a mental age of a yr 6 and think its sumat to be laughed about etc which is sad. Really, sex ed doesn't provoke early sexual activity. It has been said teens are hitting puberty quicker and peer pressure is one of the biggest things. That and alkohol.

pinkgoth2 · #55 05-10-2002, 07:12 PM

:

Originally posted by Jacob
[...] (3) Those times have been burnt to sinders since Satan wrapped his cruel claws around the childrens hearts and burned their innocence out of them... [...]

WHOOHOO! SATAN! All the way, man! You go! You did it! Wow!

...

I'm sane. Really.

- TyA

Jacob · #56 05-11-2002, 10:49 AM

:

WHOOHOO! SATAN! All the way, man! You go! You did it! Wow!

That was relativly amusing. How old are u?

(Non-Sarky)

pinkgoth2 · #57 05-11-2002, 12:01 PM

:

Originally posted by Jacob
That was relativly amusing. How old are u?

(Non-Sarky)

17. And I plan to remain as insane as I am for the rest of my life.

- TyA

Jacob · #58 05-11-2002, 12:11 PM

Kewl. U got n e foto's?

pinkgoth2 · #59 05-11-2002, 12:17 PM

:

Originally posted by Jacob
Kewl. U got n e foto's?

If you really want to bother. *rolls eyes* v_v

http://profiles.yahoo.com/pinkgoth2

- TyA

Danny · #60 05-12-2002, 04:09 PM

:

Originally posted by Sydney
I just don't think having sex id something that kids of that age should be dealing with. There are more important things to be working at when you're that age. Whatever happened to the time when being children meant being children?

The whole idea of "Childhood" only came into existence in the late 19th/early 20th century. Compared to the amount of time before then, it's hardly something to get nostalgic about...

Statikk's point seems to be that, since certain people would be offended by Sex Ed, it shouldn't be taught. I think that this is the wrong way to reason here. There is nothing immoral or offensive about sex, and those who believe that there is are the ones who are most in need of education about it.

As far as "encouraging teenagers to have sex" goes, I am going to have to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that that is necessarily a bad thing. I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but I don't think that sex in itself is ever a bad thing. The bad things are disease and unwanted pregnancy, and children are told about the risks of these and how to overcome them in Sex Ed. In fact, I don't believe that Sex Ed encourages Sex at all (whether or not that would be a bad thing). In my experience, Sex Ed lessons are very clinical and purely informative. They don't make it seem exciting or fun (it's learning about it in the playground that does that), it just teaches them how to do if more safely.