Sex education in schools!

Paul Lee

Insect Overlord wrote: »

What's your point? Were you not aware of that before?

I have no problem saying that kids "masturbate". The fact is I don't give a f*** whether they do or not. Kids are still doing whatever they've ever done. What I do wonder about is why is that suddenly interesting to some people? That makes me very curious indeed.

Paul Lee

Also, why are all these childless people so concerned with child policy? Childless people shouldn't have a say in legislation- As a safeguard against abuse.

osarusan

Paul Lee wrote: »

Childless people shouldn't have a say in legislation- As a safeguard against abuse.

How does your mind work at all?

Paul Lee

Legislation concerning children that is. Thanks for the prompt.

sydthebeat

Paul Lee wrote: »

Childless people shouldn't have a say in legislation.

congratulations, you just won stupidest post of the day !!!!

and its not even 1 pm yet

osarusan

This is just as bafflingly stupid:

Paul Lee wrote: »

Childless people shouldn't have a say in legislation concerning children- As a safeguard against abuse.

Paul Lee

sydthebeat wrote: »

congratulations, you just won stupidest post of the day !!!!

and its not even 1 pm yet

Interesting how you picked that quote to comment on instead of my earlier ones. Speaks volumes.

Agenda?

sydthebeat

Paul Lee wrote: »

Interesting how you picked that quote to comment on instead of my earlier ones. Speaks volumes.

Agenda?

nope.

Just calling it out for what it is

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Paul Lee wrote: »

Interesting how you picked that quote to comment on instead of my earlier ones. Speaks volumes.

Agenda?

Well.... how exactly are you going to enfoece it?

Legislation is voted upon by TDs who are elected: are you proposing taking the vote away from childless people? Or what about TDs who don't have kids, but represent people who do?

Or teachers, scout/guide leaders, childcare professionals, social workers...? You don't value their input because they simply never had kids?

The idea that you HAVE to be a parent in order to know kids is one of the stupidest ideas regularly expressed on boards.ie.

Paul Lee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well.... how exactly are you going to enfoece it?

Legislation is voted upon by TDs who are elected: are you proposing taking the vote away from childless people? Or what about TDs who don't have kids, but represent people who do?

Or teachers, scout/guide leaders, childcare professionals, social workers...? You don't value their input because they simply never had kids?

The idea that you HAVE to be a parent in order to know kids is one of the stupidest ideas regularly expressed on boards.ie.

It's not that you don't know anything about kids. It's just that you don't have anything like as much to lose if your opinion is damaging to kids. Would I be happy to forego my vote on kids legislation if I didn't have kids? Absolutely.

Varik

Don't know if it's needed in primary, and personally would have rather had it as a section of science class in 1st-3rd rather than the awkward sharing circle we got.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Paul Lee wrote: »

It's not that you don't know anything about kids. It's just that you don't have anything like as much to lose if your opinion is damaging to kids. Would I be happy to forego my vote on kids legislation if I didn't have kids? Absolutely.

So now you're saying they don't care about kids because they don't have any?

I have a niece I care about very much and want to see as safe as possible, thank you very much. Teachers care about their students and probably better placed to vote on safe classroom practices, to be honest.

Time to back down here, Paul. Your idea has been proven to be unfair, ignroant and unworkable.

QED

Paul Lee

osarusan wrote: »

How does your mind work at all?

I like the way you lifted the second sentence without including the preceding one.

Pretty evil intent going on there. You've made that quite obvious.

I'd love to know a bit more about your background.

Just sayin.

Paul Lee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So now you're saying they don't care about kids because they don't have any?

I have a niece I care about very much and want to see as safe as possible, thank you very much. Teachers care about their students and probably better placed to vote on safe classroom practices, to be honest.

Time to back down here, Paul. Your idea has been proven to be unfair, ignroant and unworkable.

QED

QNED

Quod Non Erat Demonstrandum.

Back off? No, I'm liking the idea a lot more since bringing it up, and you're really helping to convince me of it's validity- which I must thank you for.

AndrewJRenko

Paul Lee wrote: »

(This message is not for Consuela, just a general message> Quick shout out to all pedophiles. We're watching you.)

Could you please clarify what you mean here? Are you indicating that anyone who expresses an interest in sex education is a paedophile?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Could you please clarify what you mean here? Are you indicating that anyone who expresses an interest in sex education is a paedophile?

Considering someone just picked up a 2 week ban for that, I hope not.

But if his idea is that sex education only effects parents, it's pretty much as bad as the rest of his ideas.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Paul Lee wrote: »

QNED

Quod Non Erat Demonstrandum.

Back off? No, I'm liking the idea a lot more since bringing it up, and you're really helping to convince me of it's validity- which I must thank you for.

... while refusing the address the obvious problems highlighted, because you can't.

Proven and done, go waste someone else's time!

LineOfBeauty

I'm not THAT long out of school and my experiences of sexual education in secondary school were pretty woeful. Admittedly the school has links to Christian brothers, though that being said it is one of the largest boy schools in the country. My favourite one was when, in 5th year, they brought in this group who encouraged a room of a couple hundred boys not to wear condoms. Basically, don't have sex, but if you do, don't use a condom. All of this being taught by a lady who claimed to be a "born again virgin" which, even to my young mind, sounded utterly ridiculous.

On other occasions we had a former drunk and junkie who'd found God tell us about the homosexuals would be damned for all eternity and we had the anti abortion crowd in (at least they gave you a nice pen for sitting through their bile filled rants).

Hotblack Desiato

Varik wrote: »

Don't know if it's needed in primary

As a parent of a child currently in 6th class, some of whose classmates have been menstruating for quite some time now, it absolutely is needed in primary.

It's OK if you'd rather keep your head in the sand but it does a grave disservice to kids to force them to do the same.

TheValeyard

Varik wrote: »

Don't know if it's needed in primary, and personally would have rather had it as a section of science class in 1st-3rd rather than the awkward sharing circle we got.

Science does the biology bits while SPHE part of wellbeing does the consent, emotional, biology and practical side of things.

Paul Lee

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Could you please clarify what you mean here? Are you indicating that anyone who expresses an interest in sex education is a paedophile?

I can fully understand how you would think that if that's what I wrote.

Let me check...... Nope. Didn't write that.

Why are people suddenly interested in children masturbating? Its really creepy and disturbing.

I thought the evil side of the Catholic church was bad. The people promoting this dark BS are even worse. It's like it was evil before but now we've got over that and are simply promoting child abuse.

Sex education for children is vitally important which is why I'm taking responsibility for it instead of handing it over to (at best) an ill educated teacher. That's not an insult. It takes an extremely intelligent person to teach sex ed in any meaningful way- I'm talking philosopher level. And sorry to say I'm not enthused with the level of intellectual debate going on here. Don't get me wrong. I don't mind it. It's just really easy.

Funny old world isn't it?

AndrewJRenko

Paul Lee wrote: »

I can fully understand how you would think that if that's what I wrote.

Let me check...... Nope. Didn't write that.

Why are people suddenly interested in children masturbating? Its really creepy and disturbing.

I thought the evil side of the Catholic church was bad. The people promoting this dark BS are even worse. It's like it was evil before but now we've got over that and are simply promoting child abuse.

Sex education for children is vitally important which is why I'm taking responsibility for it instead of handing it over to (at best) an ill educated teacher. That's not an insult. It takes an extremely intelligent person to teach sex ed in any meaningful way- I'm talking philosopher level. And sorry to say I'm not enthused with the level of intellectual debate going on here. Don't get me wrong. I don't mind it. It's just really easy.

Funny old world isn't it?

Is it the hallmark of extremely intelligent people that they feel the need to twist a natural interest in one aspect of a child's development as something twisted and creepy?

And perhaps you could clarify who are the paedophiles on this thread that you are watching?

Hotblack Desiato

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it the hallmark of extremely intelligent people that they feel the need to twist a natural interest in one aspect of a child's development as something twisted and creepy?

Or to compare educators with child rapists and conclude that they are worse than child rapists?

Paul Lee

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Or to compare educators with child rapists and conclude that they are worse than child rapists?

Anyone guilty of a crime should be reported to the gards. Why are you worried though? That's interesting.

Hotblack you are hilarious. Don't worry I'm too busy to pursue you legally, and besides, you're helping me to prove my point of how vapid the other side of the argument really is.

Paul Lee

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it the hallmark of extremely intelligent people that they feel the need to twist a natural interest in one aspect of a child's development as something twisted and creepy?

And perhaps you could clarify who are the paedophiles on this thread that you are watching?

Natural? I would have said an unnatural interest. Quite unnatural and disturbing interest.

AndrewJRenko

Paul Lee wrote: »

Natural? I would have said an unnatural interest. Quite unnatural and disturbing interest.

What is unnatural about being interested in sex education? It's just one part of a child's education - like literacy or science or home economics.

Are we really stuck in the 1970s where any interest in sexual matters is 'unnatural and disturbing'?

And please do clarify who exactly you are 'watching'?

Paul Lee

You want to talk about Sex education? No problem.

I was talking about young children being taught about masturbation. Quite another topic, even though it's being brought under the same heading.

What "pedophiles" am I watching? No one in particular. Why do you ask?

If you have any information about pedophiles please inform the gardai. I promise to do the same. Fair enough?

Hotblack Desiato

Paul Lee wrote: »

Anyone guilty of a crime should be reported to the gards. Why are you worried though? That's interesting.

Hotblack you are hilarious. Don't worry I'm too busy to pursue you legally, and besides, you're helping me to prove my point of how vapid the other side of the argument really is.

Why am I supposedly worried about what?

What might you "pursue me legally" for and how?

Be as specific as possible, please.

Paul Lee

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm not THAT long out of school and my experiences of sexual education in secondary school were pretty woeful. Admittedly the school has links to Christian brothers, though that being said it is one of the largest boy schools in the country. My favourite one was when, in 5th year, they brought in this group who encouraged a room of a couple hundred boys not to wear condoms. Basically, don't have sex, but if you do, don't use a condom. All of this being taught by a lady who claimed to be a "born again virgin" which, even to my young mind, sounded utterly ridiculous.

On other occasions we had a former drunk and junkie who'd found God tell us about the homosexuals would be damned for all eternity and we had the anti abortion crowd in (at least they gave you a nice pen for sitting through their bile filled rants).

I wouldn't be happy with the experience you're talking about there either. People seem to think that if you're not in favour of interfering with kids that you're for remaining ignorant. I'm for neither but the crazy thing is that ignorance, while it's terrible is actually a better option than have someone discuss inappropriate things with your young child.

People want you to be one or zero, black or white. While nature and facts are mostly like that, opinions and feelings are nuanced.

AndrewJRenko

Paul Lee wrote: »

You want to talk about Sex education? No problem.

I was talking about young children being taught about masturbation. Quite another topic, even though it's being brought under the same heading.

Why would it be 'another topic'? Masturbation is a normal, natural activity.

Why would you be so negative about ensuring that children simply have some context to what goes on?

Paul Lee wrote: »

What "pedophiles" am I watching? No one in particular. Why do you ask?

I ask because you said above: "Quick shout out to all pedophiles. We're watching you.".

Who are these paedophiles that you're watching?