Sick Liberal Sex Education with Taxpayer Money!

No... just...er, well... no.

Hyperbole, poor, selective reporting of a very minor, peripheral event with frothing mouthed transference of aggression and frustration.

There are other, graver things to get upset about. Lets see some anger over money infesting and trumping sensible government, for example, or our constitutional rights regarding search and seizure (and privacy) getting removed illegaly... strangely the right AND left are limply silent about it.

Getting upset about a sincere effort at educating teenagers about sex... no matter how clumsily... just isn't a priority imo.

a reply to: infolurker

I don't get it. Isn't porn illegal to view for minors? Aren't most of those activities illegal outside a conference setting?

I mean... I'm a liberal but this isn't helpful. You don't need to teach foreplay in sex ed. You only need to teach reproductive health, prevention methods against pregnancy and STDs, and how to understand what abuse is.

That's it. Any grown-up who had a firm grasp on the above items will have a totally healthy attitude about their sexuality. What that article claims the conference covered will lead to warped and distorted views that foreplay doesn't lead to sex. How is that smart?

You guys have that puritan fear of sex way too deep in your brains at this point. When I was 10 I remember being at a friend house and we caught his 6 year old brother and the 6 year old neighbor girl roiling around in the front yard naked and dry humping.

Sex is hardwired into human beings from a very young age and denying this fact has caused a lot of issues in our society. We are supposed to explore as kids and the taboo against that is so strong.

More importantly if you think sex end causes teen/pre teen sex you are wildly ignorant. They were already #ing long before sex end was invented. They were doing the same # 50 years ago. You just didn't know because there was no "teen moms" TV show.

If you really want to protect kids from being bombarded with sexual messages you should be protesting our advertising and marketing culture. Do you think kids are blind and deaf?

My town is conservative and has no sex ed and I constantly hear kids as young as 8 referencing sex. I work with kids every day. You'd probably know about this if you did too. You can't just watch TV and read the news to get your handle on reality.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: the owlbear

What does the debbil have to do with this?

What does "Liberal" have to do with it?

a reply to: tavi45

Actually dry humping at six would be a strong indication of sexual abuse within that age group. While it's common for kids to do various things like touching etc, something like humping would be an indication of being exposed to particular sexual acts at an early age.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: tavi45

Actually dry humping at six would be a strong indication of sexual abuse within that age group. While it's common for kids to do various things like touching etc, something like humping would be an indication of being exposed to particular sexual acts at an early age.

Exactly. When I was growing up, any time a girlfriend was a little "too eager" when I just wasn't really ready, I'd find out she was sexually abused.

Obviously, that's not always the case but... if little kids are acting that way, I'd definitely be suspicious.

a reply to: Cuervo

Yeah what's really difficult is it's hard to get information out of children because there is a lot of shame etc. associated with sexual abuse(regardless if the abuse involved touching or just exposure to sexual acts before puberty when the body naturally starts leaning that way). It's usually done by someone known to them and for that reason it is really really difficult to do anything about it. CPS isn't that great at doing much of anything most of the time because they don't have the resources to spend the amount of time with potential child sex abuse victims to get information. I wouldn't even know how to approach a situation like that if I witnessed it.

a reply to: infolurker

11 year olds are having sex, ya'll. Whether we like it or not.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: the owlbear

I'm just missing the logic. Less teen pregnancy and disease are excellent goals. The method leaves much to be desired.

There are ways. Show some diseased genitals. But that would be showing a diseased penis or vagina in real pictures to young people.

They can watch death and dismemberment. WAR HELL YEAH, 'MERICA!!! but not learn the ramifications IF they decide to become sexually active.

a reply to: the owlbear

Oh please that's just two party label garbage. If the "conservatives" were so against it they'd take their kids out of school or march against their taxes being used for this.

It's just a sign of the decay of America which has been perpetuated by both parties (different wings same bird).

a reply to: OrphanApology That was at the Abstinence Sex education course, created and sold as religiously non offensive. I knew that they were lying, and learned that fifty years ago, in school with my peers.

What a dumping ground. I learned most of what I knew about sex by middle school. Nearly sixty years ago, there was a fifth grade girl, Linda, who had already developed highly noticeable breasts. She was teased by the boys and envied by the girls. Don't try that hog wash on me. What psychological disease infected so many of my peers needs research. They have turned into the biggest lairs and hypocrites in American History.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
I was home schooled and I remember a friend telling me that their public school taught them that viruses pass right through condoms.

I have an image burned in my head of my middle school gym teacher hitting a tennis ball through a volleyball net saying that the HIV virus is so small, it's like the ball going through the net. The net representing a condom.

Sigh.

a reply to: infolurker

herr derr sex is du badness.

That's basically all I got.

The correct Title of the thread should be "Sex Ed Conference Touts Alternatives: Bathe, Shave And Role-Play Together"

not "Sick Liberal Sex Education with Taxpayer Money!" Has nothing to do with Liberals.

Christ people if you hate a group that much just to make up lies about who did this then you should look in a mirror at yourself.

School Districts that allowed this are made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents.

I honestly thought that there was a time on this site "You had to use the title of the article"

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: infolurker

I don't get it. Isn't porn illegal to view for minors? Aren't most of those activities illegal outside a conference setting?

I mean... I'm a liberal but this isn't helpful. You don't need to teach foreplay in sex ed. You only need to teach reproductive health, prevention methods against pregnancy and STDs, and how to understand what abuse is.

That's it. Any grown-up who had a firm grasp on the above items will have a totally healthy attitude about their sexuality. What that article claims the conference covered will lead to warped and distorted views that foreplay doesn't lead to sex. How is that smart?

Totally agree. Plus, 11 is way too young to be covering more advanced, mature topics like sex toys, porn, cross dressing, ect. Those are adult issues, adult topics. Teens have a hard enough time wrestling with the basic biology of puberty and the sexual development, this just complicates things. And teens shouldn't really be experimenting sexually at that level. I mean, come on, sex toys for junior high kids?

a reply to: EvilBat

I think what the OP's getting at is that liberal policies allow these kinds of things.

Liberal, conservative, it's voting for the same system and it doesn't change a thing.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I know what the OP ment and so does everyone that reads it.

It is not just liberal policies that allowed this. It's a mixture of all parties that this happened.
That is why I said stick to the article title not fabricating this one. Not blaming one group of people
when it was a mixture.