Drag March "Coming for your children"

[Dill]

(06-30-2023, 02:42 PM)pally Wrote: and in some states, like Florida, teachers are mandated to report to the parents the original conversation and the counselor is supposed to tell the parents about their conversations as well

Exactly, what "sex stuff" that is currently being discussed in schools should be banned?  It's easy to stay vague...what specifically is happening in schools.

This just reminded me of when my family was living in Germany and I found a German "teen" magazine (aimed at preteens) in our living room (I think one of my 11-year-old daughter's school friends had given it to her). This was about 1992.

It had an article about "sex," which included two , full-page frontal nude color photographs of a teen girl and boy, probably about 16, with labels to their sex parts. The text below explained what intercourse involved, including that first penetration could be painful. I don't recall if it said anything about protection.

It struck me at the time how "normal" that was for Germany. OF COURSE children should know what's what. Matter of fact, like explaining the life cycle of a frog. And even in public schools, they didn't treat sex like incest, a shameful family secret you'd NEVER share with a teacher or anyone outside the family.
Germany is also chock full of religious conservatives, who nevertheless would not have viewed frank treatment of sex by teachers as a violation of parental rights any more than the teaching of botany. 

It also struck me how this would look to Americans, how intolerable it would be to expose children to such info in our society, with its much higher rate of teen pregnancy. The pictures alone would have unhinged even "liberals." 

Just got me to thinking how so many of these social boundaries and their embedment in school policy are tradition/culture specific. So as cultures change, or the change speeds up, clashes are bound to occur as boundaries shift. 

[Lucidus]

(06-30-2023, 05:13 PM)Dill Wrote: As for the second bolded, thanks for keeping your focus on the real problem. The LGBTQIA community, in the U.S. and elsewhere, is not stifled and persecuted because some in that group engage in flamboyant protest. As if that community has ALWAYS been accepted and now the problem is some bad eggs are spoiling it for everyone.  That wouldn't work unless misrepresentation and hatred were still the norm for at least a plurality of Americans. 

And I think you are quite correct about what produces "bad eggs"--the fear and hatred they still experience in personal transactions. There is, seriously, no transgender cabal after children and publicly announcing their intent. The inability to sort that out, or conscious desire NOT to, gives some indication of how far this community has to go for full acceptance. 
 

Consider homosexuality; my specific segment of the community. It wasn't all that long ago that homosexuality was considered abnormal, immoral and even a mental disorder. While we have come a long way, there are still alarmingly high numbers of people who still feel those labels are accurate. Modernity - via education and information - has allowed us better standing and greater acceptance, but it is a constant battle in terms of the fragility of rights and equality we have worked so hard for. 

That's why it's so frustrating watching the current battle that the transgender community finds themselves in; a battle they would rather not have to engage in, but have no choice. Much like the homosexual community, they are now faced with the reality of having to defend their mere existence. On top of that, a portion of their government is vehemently trying to advocate against their right to equality and acceptance. It's so incredibly disheartening to see that no matter how far we've come, there is still so much resistance to people simply existing as who they are. 

[SunsetBengal]

(06-30-2023, 05:36 PM)Dill Wrote: This just reminded me of when my family was living in Germany and I found a German "teen" magazine (aimed at preteens) in our living room (I think one of my 11-year-old daughter's school friends had given it to her). This was about 1992.

It had an article about "sex," which included two , full-page frontal nude color photographs of a teen girl and boy, probably about 16, with labels to their sex parts. The text below explained what intercourse involved, including that first penetration could be painful. I don't recall if it said anything about protection.

It struck me at the time how "normal" that was for Germany. OF COURSE children should know what's what. Matter of fact, like explaining the life cycle of a frog. And even in public schools, they didn't treat sex like incest, a shameful family secret you'd NEVER share with a teacher or anyone outside the family.
Germany is also chock full of religious conservatives, who nevertheless would not have viewed frank treatment of sex by teachers as a violation of parental rights any more than the teaching of botany. 

It also struck me how this would look to Americans, how intolerable it would be to expose children to such info in our society, with its much higher rate of teen pregnancy. The pictures alone would have unhinged even "liberals." 

Just got me to thinking how so many of these social boundaries and their embedment in school policy are tradition/culture specific. So as cultures change, or the change speeds up, clashes are bound to occur as boundaries shift. 

Wait, so you were actually living in Europe, and elected to move back??  For someone with your political and social views, isn't that like getting to heaven and then electively coming back to Earth?  Not to go completely off topic, but my Grandmother on my Mother's side was from France, then moved to Canada prior to migrating to the US.  When I was a child she did her best to explain the cultural differences between Europe and the US;  Areas such as children indulged in wine at the dinner table so that they learned to not become drunkards and how human sexuality was openly a part of life and not a "taboo" to unspoken about in the home or around the children.  I only got to see her on three week long visits, with the last being the year I turned 12.  It would have been nice to have gotten to know her better as an adult.  

[*pally*]

(06-30-2023, 03:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd need to see specifics before commenting further.


Seriously?  Do you not have internet access?  

https://www.foxnews.com/media/wisconsin-parents-outraged-inappropriate-sex-education-curriculum-elementary-schools-really-bad


Any sexual topic with elementary school kids is over the line.  Point blank, it is the responsibility of parents to have these discussions with their children.  If you want to have a lesson on a "bad touch" that's fine.  But teaching children about gender identity, homosexuality and other such topics is introducing a lot that children are likely not ready for.  Even if they are ready, it's the responsibility of the parents.

Which begs the question, why are you so pro children being taught sex in elementary school?  I'm not being accusatory here, but it seems like a very odd hill on which to plant your flag.

BECAUSE CHILDREN IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARE HAVING SEX!!!   Ohio had a pregnant 10-year-old...that's 4th grade.

Do I want an overload of sex ed in elementary school...no I do not.  But yeah, we have to start it earlier now than in our day if only because, especially in girls, puberty is arriving earlier.  Place the lessons in health classes.

Kindergartners are not too young to learn the names of their body parts, even private body parts. The breasts, vagina, penis, or testicles are body parts.  It's okay to use their proper names without cute little nicknames or giggling when you same them. Teaching them that some body parts are so dirty they can't even be properly named hurts kids when they can't communicate about those body parts. They should be taught not to be embarrassed about any parts of their body. 

Teaching children about different family structures, including same-sex parents,  is reflecting today's reality.  It is not teaching "sex" it is teaching relationships.  Kids today have a mother and father, some have them living together, and some have them living apart.  Some kids live with 2 dads or 2 moms.  Some kids have step-parents and step-siblings.  Some live with grandparents, other relatives, or foster parents.  Ignoring some children's realities because adults feel icky about it does the children a disservice by isolating those who don't live in the so-called nuclear family.

If 4th graders are having sex (consensual or non-consensual) they need to learn about it.  Sorry, some don't like that but again ignoring that reality doesn't change the facts.  They need to learn what it is.  They need to learn how to say no.   They need to learn the consequences.

Kids discover they are gay about the same age you discovered you weren't..that was what...age 10-12?   So again, discussing same-sex attraction at those ages is not inappropriate.  

And as much as I would love to leave the entire subject to parents far too many do a lousy job of teaching their kids.  Ignorance is how children end up pregnant or with STDs.   

It is 2023, and kids of every age have easy access to all sorts of information we didn't when we were kids.  They face pressures we didn't and that includes pressure to engage in sexual activity.  We can't protect them from the real world or teach them about a world that no longer exists.  Education, even sex ed, protect children.  Ignorance harms them.


I used to work on a woman's health hotline and later ran a message board.  The number of young girls calling and asking basic questions was actually frightening.  The number of teenagers who don't understand that sex leads to pregnancy was alarming.  The number of callers who didn't understand that oral sex can transmit an STD was overwhelming.

So long story short...providing sexual education to children is a hill I will plant my flag on.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-30-2023, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: BECAUSE CHILDREN IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARE HAVING SEX!!!   Ohio had a pregnant 10-year-old...that's 4th grade.

Sounds like a parent needs a visit from CPS...

[*pally*]

(06-30-2023, 07:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Sounds like a parent needs a visit from CPS...

she and her sister were raped by mom's boyfriend.  But this was just a singular case that we have heard about.  Many more happen quietly

[SunsetBengal]

(06-30-2023, 07:40 PM)pally Wrote: she and her sister were raped by mom's boyfriend.  But this was just a singular case that we have heard about.  Many more happen quietly

I know, my wife is a CPS investigator on a specialized team for sexual and physical abuse victims.  Stats show that 95% of child sexual abuse cases come with the perpetrator being either a lover of the mother or a family member.

[Dill]

(06-30-2023, 06:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wait, so you were actually living in Europe, and elected to move back??  For someone with your political and social views, isn't that like getting to heaven and then electively coming back to Earth?  Not to go completely off topic, but my Grandmother on my Mother's side was from France, then moved to Canada prior to migrating to the US.  When I was a child she did her best to explain the cultural differences between Europe and the US;  Areas such as children indulged in wine at the dinner table so that they learned to not become drunkards and how human sexuality was openly a part of life and not a "taboo" to unspoken about in the home or around the children.  I only got to see her on three week long visits, with the last being the year I turned 12.  It would have been nice to have gotten to know her better as an adult.  

Well Sunset, originally, we only planned to stay two years, then three when it meant my wife could earn more money. 

Then my daughter required cancer treatment and that, plus the follow up, kept us another 7--10 altogether.

It was a very good life for my kids, and we could have easily stayed, but my daughter's illness cost my wife
serious freelance work and I had no real work future.

Main thing though, my wife and I grew up with lots of extended family. Our children were missing that, so that moved
us to return before it was too late and their extended family were strangers. Right now I am sitting in my daughter's
house in Three Forks MT while she and my wife are visiting cousins in the Mission Valley. Just got a text message from
them, kayaking on the Flathead river. 4th of July well be at my sister's ranch on the Sun River, where my daughter
will socialize with 8 cousins. Now she sees at least one of them or my sister every other week. And we are altogether
once a year.

That's what we came back for. But yeah, I took a lot with me from Germany, in terms of cultural comparisons, especially
the stuff you can't learn from books. Same for my stay in the Middle East. So for me American culture and politics
are framed by that background. Can't get into a healthcare debate without remembering Germans had a better
system than we do. (Not intended to put the U.S. down, but to urge people to think of alternatives.)

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2023, 07:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I know, my wife is a CPS investigator on a specialized team for sexual and physical abuse victims.  Stats show that 95% of child sexual abuse cases come with the perpetrator being either a lover of the mother or a family member.

I have to imagine all of the run-of-the-mill abusers and creeps have to be pretty elated that so many people are willing to believe that the real dangers to children are teachers and Hollywood elites.

Hey officer, I'm just a guy in a big white windowless van watching kids at the local pool swim....shouldn't you be on the look out for Tom Hanks, or Hillary Clinton or something? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-30-2023, 07:40 PM)pally Wrote: she and her sister were raped by mom's boyfriend.  But this was just a singular case that we have heard about.  Many more happen quietly

Being raped isn't a child "having sex".  I'll respond to your full post later, but you deliberately misrepresented this story in your original post.  I've had cases where men raped an infant, that's not an infant engaging in sexual activity.  Seriously, the fact that you compared a 10 year old being raped to them being sexually active to prove your point is quite frankly nauseating. 

[Dill]

(06-29-2023, 02:01 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: I'm glad SOMEONE said it, 'cause I was going to post that 3 members of this board have *explicitly* stated that they are not Right Wing... and proceed to base their entire posts and everything, on right wing propaganda and right wing-related, "news." 2 in this thread, at that.

It's almost as if the qualifier is stated because they know that there's an inherent issue with being right wing and they choose to go against their better judgement. Something like, "I don't drink and drive, but I will be sure to head to the bar tonight to celebrate something/be miserable and then get home later on..."

I mean, people like Brad and he who shalL not bE mentiONed are PROUD to be right wingers and are not shy about, "what side they're on," so why hide from the facade of, "unaffiliated," or whatever, when your actions prove you're nothing but?

I'm going to agree with you on this; I just want to first say that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a "right winger." Liberal democracy cannot work without a conservative party. The term "right" covers rather a wide spectrum of beliefs and behaviors from monarchists to Nazis to evangelicals to small business owners who just want their Congress to balance the budget, most of whom don't share the same values. In the U.S. the latter may comprise traditional Burkean conservatism.  About the only thing that collects them under the "right" rubric is that at a very general and abstract level all are more comfortable with hierarchy than liberals and actual leftists, though the range of degree here is great. A portion of this "right" is not so wedded to the GOP that they cannot vote Dem when the GOP seems unable to manage issues important to them.

I don't recall that being an "independent" was ever a big issue for some on the right until it became clear that the Iraq War was going sideways. Fox was just ramping up its full propaganda power in 2002-03; it was easy to maneuver that audience into conviction the war was necessary and Saddam had WMDs. Hannity and Rush led the charge against the "traitorous left," who saw Saddam as quite distinct from Al Qaeda and didn't see why we had to invade even if he had WMDs, which he likely didn't according to our own intel. So "the left" supported Saddam and Al Qaeda. True Americans don't criticize a president during a war. They back him. Then after the prompt victory came the jubilant celebration which seemed to confirm Bush's judgment and American power. Hey world--this is what happens when you mess with America. You with us or against us!?

Three years later, after Fallujah, with battle deaths reaching the thousands AFTER the "victory," and still no WMDs, the crowing fell silent. Rush and Hannity and Fox had been wrong about LOTS of things. Then Obama won, and wanted healthcare for people who couldn't afford it. Then a big recession hit. Clearly O. was also mismanaging the war. Was he "too close" to "those people"? Just asking. 

2010--that's when I first began hearing it. Hard right wingers were no longer "Republican" and cursing both parties. They hated Obama for reasons they could never clearly articulate. But he was hammered every day about his brown suit or the coffee cup salute etc. Were lower and middle class Americans REALLY opposing tax cuts to the rich and the end of pre-existing condition clauses? Jon McNaughton began painting pictures of O. burning the Constitution and the like. Tea Partiers wanted the government out of Medicare, and they gave the House back to the GOP--the party noted for its defense of government programs. And when I argued with them on line or in person, citing Bush or planks in the Republican platform, they'd suddenly say they weren't Republican, and throw up Fox-generated false equivalences while telling ME to get my head out of the sand.  "Both sides" were to blame for the 2008 recession and such like. And Hilary supported the Iraq War too. The WMDs had been moved to Syria. 

I think this may be a kind of plausible deniability. The party that represents your values and policy preferences REALLY poops the bed; then course-corrects to get worse. But it's no longer YOUR party so you're not responsible for the choices of people you voted for. But when election time comes around, you are still going to vote for the party that represents your interests as you see them. Pretend like you are in the middle and then, wow, your "independent" sources inform you this Biden fellow is corrupt and has weaponized the DOJ, plus he is a "socialist," while Trump just outlined a persuasive foreign policy which will make America great again by shrinking its diplomatic investment in the world--so you go with him. A tremendously successful businessman (you saw him on The Apprentice, right?) who stands for the common man. No wonder the fearful "fake news" makes up stories about bankruptcies and fraud and accusations of sexual assault and obstruction and misuse of office and sedition.

People like Stewy and Nately are, I think, genuine independents. They voted with one party for a time, while it was a rational and defensible choice. Then they saw that party veer into crazy. They're not convinced by the alternative. That makes their vote genuinely up for grabs; You can't just say "socialist!" or "trans bathrooms" to herd them your way. Dems might get them with reasonably good candidate; if not they'll likely go 3rd party. We never see them defending Trump's Muslim ban as not a Muslim ban or arguing that he was not responsible for 1/6 or demanding a border wall or praising Trump's SCOTUS picks. That's not true of the hard right "independents" we are speaking of. They will always oppose "the left," as it has been defined for them.  If Fox says the Durham Report exposed FBI bias then, by God, they'll prove it with Fox links. Russia investigation exonerated Trump from all collusion and obstruction. Trump's coup attempt is not a deal breaker. Sheesh. But don't "label" them just based on what they support. 

You can be an agnostic and still support papal infallibility, right? 

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2023, 05:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Just got me to thinking how so many of these social boundaries and their embedment in school policy are tradition/culture specific. So as cultures change, or the change speeds up, clashes are bound to occur as boundaries shift. 

America is pretty weird.  The core of our entertainment industry is based around PG-13 movies that have body counts that dwarf old school slasher movies, but showing a woman's nipples is adult territory. 

[GMDino]

(06-30-2023, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: BECAUSE CHILDREN IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARE HAVING SEX!!!   Ohio had a pregnant 10-year-old...that's 4th grade.

Do I want an overload of sex ed in elementary school...no I do not.  But yeah, we have to start it earlier now than in our day if only because, especially in girls, puberty is arriving earlier.  Place the lessons in health classes.

Kindergartners are not too young to learn the names of their body parts, even private body parts. The breasts, vagina, penis, or testicles are body parts.  It's okay to use their proper names without cute little nicknames or giggling when you same them. Teaching them that some body parts are so dirty they can't even be properly named hurts kids when they can't communicate about those body parts. They should be taught not to be embarrassed about any parts of their body. 

Teaching children about different family structures, including same-sex parents,  is reflecting today's reality.  It is not teaching "sex" it is teaching relationships.  Kids today have a mother and father, some have them living together, and some have them living apart.  Some kids live with 2 dads or 2 moms.  Some kids have step-parents and step-siblings.  Some live with grandparents, other relatives, or foster parents.  Ignoring some children's realities because adults feel icky about it does the children a disservice by isolating those who don't live in the so-called nuclear family.

If 4th graders are having sex (consensual or non-consensual) they need to learn about it.  Sorry, some don't like that but again ignoring that reality doesn't change the facts.  They need to learn what it is.  They need to learn how to say no.   They need to learn the consequences.

Kids discover they are gay about the same age you discovered you weren't..that was what...age 10-12?   So again, discussing same-sex attraction at those ages is not inappropriate.  

And as much as I would love to leave the entire subject to parents far too many do a lousy job of teaching their kids.  Ignorance is how children end up pregnant or with STDs.   

It is 2023, and kids of every age have easy access to all sorts of information we didn't when we were kids.  They face pressures we didn't and that includes pressure to engage in sexual activity.  We can't protect them from the real world or teach them about a world that no longer exists.  Education, even sex ed, protect children.  Ignorance harms them.


I used to work on a woman's health hotline and later ran a message board.  The number of young girls calling and asking basic questions was actually frightening.  The number of teenagers who don't understand that sex leads to pregnancy was alarming.  The number of callers who didn't understand that oral sex can transmit an STD was overwhelming.

So long story short...providing sexual education to children is a hill I will plant my flag on.

This.

Watching "Shiny Happy People" and seeing how these groomers want to stop all sex education because it teaches the children what is appropriate and what is not.

And yes the parents should be telling them too but too often the parents are buying into the whole "you must submit" from these church leaders and the like.

Throw in too many parents simply don't have the answers, or they lack the proper insurance for their daughters to get the proper care/information and we are creating a huge problem that too many people with power use to their own advantage.

[samhain]

THE DRAG MARCH IS CHOPPING YOUR BALLS OFF!!! ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

[*pally*]

(06-30-2023, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Being raped isn't a child "having sex".  I'll respond to your full post later, but you deliberately misrepresented this story in your original post.  I've had cases where men raped an infant, that's not an infant engaging in sexual activity.  Seriously, the fact that you compared a 10 year old being raped to them being sexually active to prove your point is quite frankly nauseating. 

You love changing topics when you don’t like answers. No rape isn’t choosing to have sex. The point is 10 year old children can get pregnant.

Your head is in the sand if you don’t think both consensual and non consensual sexual activity from fondling, to oral sex, to infer ours is happening even among elementary aged kids.

Sexual harassment is a regular occurrence

Kids need the tools to protect themselves the best ways possible. Education is one way to do that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-01-2023, 01:42 AM)pally Wrote: You love changing topics when you don’t like answers.  No rape isn’t choosing to have sex.  The point is 10 year old children can get pregnant.

An odd accusation when accused of misrepresenting basic facts.  You specifically stated;

(06-30-2023, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: BECAUSE CHILDREN IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARE HAVING SEX!!!   Ohio had a pregnant 10-year-old...that's 4th grade.

Being raped is not having sex, it's being a victim of sexual assault.  Miss me with trying to spin you attempts to equate sexual assault to being sexually active.  If anyone is trying to "change topics" here it is clearly yourself.

Quote:Your head is in the sand if you don’t think both consensual and non consensual sexual activity from fondling, to oral sex, to infer ours is happening even among elementary aged kids.

This sentence is structed in as nonsensical a way as to render it meaningless.

Quote:Sexual harassment is a regular occurrence

Indeed it is, but it's in no way analogous to being sexually active, as you tried to purport.

Quote:Kids need the tools to protect themselves the best ways possible.  Education is one way to do that.

It is.  Why can't said education be provided by the child's parents?  You seem to have a curious disdain for the role of parents in the development of their children.  Why is that?

[hollodero]

(07-01-2023, 02:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Miss me with trying to spin you attempts to equate sexual assault to being sexually active.  If anyone is trying to "change topics" here it is clearly yourself.

Sorry to possibly annoy you a bit now, but that is not fair. The first post might be easily misunderstood, but then it was clarified to you why the pregnant 10-year-old was mentioned, to show how early puberty can begin. "The point is 10 year old children can get pregnant". Which is true and fits the rest of the argument made.
Why not just accept this clarification instead of continuing to make this allegation. It seems uncalled for.

[Dill]

(06-30-2023, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: BECAUSE CHILDREN IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARE HAVING SEX!!!   Ohio had a pregnant 10-year-old...that's 4th grade.

What an outrageously nauseating example--of why many adults may need sex education as well as children. 

I think you are referring to the case in which a 10-year-old was raped and Ohio law prevented her from getting an abortion in her own state.

But the parents who voted into power those who drafted that law are not likely to accept the following:

(06-30-2023, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: Do I want an overload of sex ed in elementary school...no I do not.  But yeah, we have to start it earlier now than in our day if only because, especially in girls, puberty is arriving earlier.  Place the lessons in health classes.

Kindergartners are not too young to learn the names of their body parts, even private body parts. The breasts, vagina, penis, or testicles are body parts.  It's okay to use their proper names without cute little nicknames or giggling when you same them. Teaching them that some body parts are so dirty they can't even be properly named hurts kids when they can't communicate about those body parts. They should be taught not to be embarrassed about any parts of their body. . . . .

If 4th graders are having sex (consensual or non-consensual) they need to learn about it.  Sorry, some don't like that but again ignoring that reality doesn't change the facts.  They need to learn what it is.  They need to learn how to say no.   They need to learn the consequences.. . . .

And as much as I would love to leave the entire subject to parents far too many do a lousy job of teaching their kids.  Ignorance is how children end up pregnant or with STDs.   

I quite agree with this, but many parents do not. They think "if you teach them they will do it," never mind that's not what happens in other advanced industrial countries. So they think they are doing a "great job" by not teaching it.

And now people running for office in the increasingly rightward-lurching GOP have found a way of converting parental unease with social change and modern education into votes--"schools are taking away the parents right to instruct their children in such matters." 

The tactic is not restricted to sex ed. But the "parental rights" issue is restricted to the rights of some parents. Reminds me of the moment I learned that biology teachers in my son's middle school could not teach evolution. At the beginning of each course they had to read a one page statement affirming it was "only a theory," one among others. 

(06-30-2023, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: Teaching children about different family structures, including same-sex parents,  is reflecting today's reality.  It is not teaching "sex" it is teaching relationships.  Kids today have a mother and father, some have them living together, and some have them living apart.  Some kids live with 2 dads or 2 moms.  Some kids have step-parents and step-siblings.  Some live with grandparents, other relatives, or foster parents.  Ignoring some children's realities because adults feel icky about it does the children a disservice by isolating those who don't live in the so-called nuclear family.

Kids discover they are gay about the same age you discovered you weren't..that was what...age 10-12?   So again, discussing same-sex attraction at those ages is not inappropriate. . . . 

It is 2023, and kids of every age have easy access to all sorts of information we didn't when we were kids.  They face pressures we didn't and that includes pressure to engage in sexual activity.  We can't protect them from the real world or teach them about a world that no longer exists.  Education, even sex ed, protect children.  Ignorance harms them.

Agree. Can't stop the questions, especially now that children can "see" that not all families are alike and all people aren't heterosexual.

If we don't provide answers consistent with health science, then children will fill the vacuum created by uncomfortable parents and lack of medical/health knowledge with their own stories--like STDs can be transmitted by toilet seats, but not oral sex.

Have you considered that this may be more about protecting uncomfortable adults who don't have adequate answers than protecting children?

(06-30-2023, 07:24 PM)pally Wrote: I used to work on a woman's health hotline and later ran a message board.  The number of young girls calling and asking basic questions was actually frightening.  The number of teenagers who don't understand that sex leads to pregnancy was alarming.  The number of callers who didn't understand that oral sex can transmit an STD was overwhelming.

So long story short...providing sexual education to children is a hill I will plant my flag on.

So if we shut down women's health hotlines, then these problems will just go away, right?

Same logic behind keeping medical/health knowledge about sex out of the schools to "protect" (selected) parents' rights.

[*pally*]

(07-01-2023, 02:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is.  Why can't said education be provided by the child's parents?  You seem to have a curious disdain for the role of parents in the development of their children.  Why is that?

Sexual harassment is often a precursor to more aggressive sexual behavior or becomes a lifelong habit.  But it is also a sign that acting out around sexual matters starts early and needs to be dealt with at the time not when some person decides the child is "old" enough

Because not every child lives in circumstances where parents are capable of teaching them about the human body, sex, sexual behavior. or sexual health.  So no, in my experience, most children do not get adequate education in these areas by their parents.  The real world is vastly different than the fantasy world of conservatives

Sex is not a dirty little secret.  It is normal human behavior.  The more educated the child the less likely they are to participate in early sex.  And when they do , they are more likely to take proper precautions against pregnancy and STDs.

[samhain]

(07-01-2023, 11:03 AM)pally Wrote: Sexual harassment is often a precursor to more aggressive sexual behavior or becomes a lifelong habit.  But it is also a sign that acting out around sexual matters starts early and needs to be dealt with at the time not when some person decides the child is "old" enough

Because not every child lives in circumstances where parents are capable of teaching them about the human body, sex, sexual behavior. or sexual health.  So no, in my experience, most children do not get adequate education in these areas by their parents.  The real world is vastly different than the fantasy world of conservatives

Sex is not a dirty little secret.  It is normal human behavior.  The more educated the child the less likely they are to participate in early sex.  And when they do , they are more likely to take proper precautions against pregnancy and STDs.

One other variable is the varying ages that kids begin the process of puberty.  I'm sure there's a mean average, but there are always outliers in a given set that will experience things earlier (sometimes several years earlier) and later than other kids.  It's not a voluntary thing and it's not something that any parent can control (although here are thought to be environmental factors that can influence early onset).  It's a surprisingly poorly understood process considering that everyone goes through it, and it varies greatly in both when it starts and how long it takes to run it's course.  

Most kids might trend toward the normal of beginning the process as 11-13 years old but some may begin as early as 9.  I never knew this until a good friend had a daughter that went through it quite early.  It caused problems that led the family to pull her out of school and into at-home NTI before middle school.  This scared the shit out of me, because she's just a couple of years older than my son, and we definitely were not expecting to deal with him going through it for a few more years.  

When I was a kid, the process of learning about sex was about as dumb as possible.  Basically, my degenerate little buddies and I would randomly or not-so-randomly get pieces of information from somebody's dad's porn collection, or perhaps information handed down by older siblings.  I had no older sibling, so I was at a disadvantage.  Some of us were fortunate enough to learn from more experienced girls that were derided for their promiscuity, but in reality did the community an undeniably valuable public service with little thanks.  In many ways, the kept society afloat without even knowing.  Either way, it was basically the law of the jungle out there.  I think there was a video at some point in 7th or 8th grade.  No real explanation from teachers, no test, and 100 percent chance that we were not asking our parents about that shit.