|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Sex Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Hold on, hold on - that's all a bit of a jumble. I could have sex with multiple partners over a period of time. That does not means that I am acting in an irresponsiblemanner in regards to protection.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate. I could be very selective in who I pick to have sex with - that's seems to automatically attach some form of value to the period of time or how well you know them. What if I select them because they are big-breasted redheads who I know have been checked out for STDS by my dating agency? Causal/random doesn't automatically mean irresponsible. I do,however, take your generally point but how about we use "sexual active"? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-Sep-2005 05:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
All rubbish, I'm not even sure where to start.
quote: I think this is more to do with the rather victorian morals than americans tend to have SEX=BAD SEX+MARRIAGE+BLESSINGOFLORD=DOUBLEPLUSGOOD.
quote: And the problem with this? It's not really my cup of tea but what's the problem? The other flaw with what you are saying is that you present everything as a logical progression to marriage - many of us are just not interested in marriage. This message has been edited by CK, 08-Sep-2005 05:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Do you have a reading problem?
quote: quote: And I said this where? Where did I indicate this was my behaviour? We have plenty of people here willing to make up things - why not stick to what I actually said. I don't know what this soul object beyond being a construct of the christian religion so I'll leave that bit. This message has been edited by CK, 08-Sep-2005 05:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Which is generally what the kids get in the UK (reproduction in science classes) with some social context (Social development and education class - best to wait, best to be involved in a loving relationship) and then some practical advice (If you do have sex then you should...)
If it's any comfort, I'd feel unhappy about some christian filling my children's up with their nonsense. That's why in the UK we have a set currula that is strictly factual in nature. This message has been edited by CK, 08-Sep-2005 06:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
In the UK - it is set at the national level:
http://www.ncaction.org.uk If you want to see what is taught on an english science examination course: Edexcel | About Edexcel | Pearson qualifications An example section would be:
quote: This message has been edited by CK, 08-Sep-2005 06:55 PM This message has been edited by CK, 08-Sep-2005 06:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
hahahhahahah
quote: Hands up the teachers in the room who want to teach sex education?
quote: I thought you had seperation of church and state? So is that element the choice of the school or them following the Constitution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Ah that magical cutoff point - the 1960s.
So would you think that Teen Pregencies were higher or lower after the 1960s? (here's a clue - I had this debate with Faith a little while back and dug out the stats).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
it's rude where I come from to answer a question with a question (since you love to lecture me about good manners I think it's only fair that I do the same to you).
Do you think that the rates of Teen Pregencies were high or low since 1960? Do you think the overall rate of teen pregencies has increased or decreased since the 1960s? You answer my questions and I'll permit you to ask one back. This message has been edited by CK, 09-Sep-2005 01:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: and those may be of more general interest to us (to place what happened in the 1960s in proper context):
quote: But..but..it was the 1880s! It was better wanna it.. Those women were fighting against something that wasn't a problem until the 1960s
quote: Sheila Jeffreys, 'Free from all uninvited touch of man': Women's campaigns around sexuality, 1880-1914, Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 5, Issue 6, 1982, Pages 629-645. And yes people saw "traditional" marriage as a wonderful thing..oh wait...
quote: Fawcett. Millicent. 1892. On the amendments Required in the Criminal law. Amendment Act 1X85. Women’s Printing Society. London.[/quote]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: I don't make,watch or have any interest in "porn movies" - but to me what Holmes does is called "his right and none of my business". If i want to watch his pornos it's my business but otherwise what's it got to do with anyone else? Wild to me is various things but having sex with a willing person? natural. How does filming it change the inherent act? This message has been edited by CK, 09-Sep-2005 07:57 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024