We panic about child abuse, then tell 13-year olds how to have sex

We panic about child abuse, then tell 13-year-olds how to have sex

This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...ber-20-010.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday

The mystery of sex education is that parents put up with it at all. It began about 50 years ago, on the pretext that it would reduce unmarried teen pregnancies and sexual diseases. Every time these problems got worse, the answer was more sex education, more explicit than before.

Since then, unmarried pregnancies have become pretty much normal, and sexual diseases – and the ‘use’ of pornography – are an epidemic.

It is only thanks to frantic free handouts of ‘morning after’ pills and an abortion massacre that the number of teenage mothers has finally begun to level off after decades in which it zoomed upwards across the graph paper.

In a normal, reasonable society, a failure as big as this would cause a change of mind. Not here.

If you try to question sex education, you are screamed at by fanatics. This is because it isn’t, and never has been, what it claims to be. Sex education is propaganda for the permissive society. It was invented by the communist George Lukacs, schools commissar during the insane Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919, to debauch the morals of Christian schoolgirls.

It works by breaking taboos and by portraying actions as normal that would once have been seen as wrong. Last week we learned that the Government has officially endorsed material which says sex at 13, ‘for those of similar age and developmental ability’, is normal.

This is, no doubt, a point of view. In a free society, people are entitled to hold it, even if it is rather creepy. But do you want your child’s school to endorse it? And how does it square with our incessant frenzied panic about child sex abuse?

If we are so keen on the innocence of the young – and I very much think we should be – then surely this sort of radical propaganda is deeply dangerous. We do not give schools this huge power over the minds of the young for such a purpose.

How odd it is that we teach 13-year-olds to go forth and multiply, but can’t somehow teach them their times tables. Shouldn’t it be the other way round?

---

Interesting and spot on article by Peter Hitchens.

On looking at it a while back, one of the reasons why government in Great Britain became so centralised especially under the Thatcher Ministry as well as the abolition of the Greater London Council was that you literally had communist nutters running Labour councils who started introducing all mind warping stuff into schools as a form of sexual propaganda: something that isn't a wacky conspiracy but is a core feature of socialist theory, you only have to look at all communist countries for that. It was also the reason for Section 28 which a lot of people now criticise as being some evil law, but which simply stated councils cannot pump out propaganda in favour of 'alternative' lifestyles.

Get these creeps away from our children and stop replacing the family unit (especially the father) with the state.

Thoughts?

i cba reading your crap but based on the title, why wouldn't be show them how to do it safely?

if you don't teach them how to practice safe sex, they're going to do it regardless and end up with teenage pregnancies etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

i cba reading your crap but based on the title, why wouldn't be show them how to do it safely?

if you don't teach them how to practice safe sex, they're going to do it regardless and end up with teenage pregnancies etc.

---

Why is it that every comment you post towards me is always tinted with a nasty streak when I don't anything like that to you? Another forum member does this often (and for years) too. Haven't you both yet learnt that I don't give a **** about your online grudge? Take a walk.

Teaching people to do things safely and actually know what they're doing is communism, lol

Enforced ignorance is the only way forward!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Teaching people to do things safely and actually know what they're doing is communism, lol

Enforced ignorance is the only way forward!

---

Doing more of the same over and over again when it has failed is what is ignorant.

No I'm pretty sure ignorance is ignorance, continuing to educate people is education. You can't stop hormonal teens from exploring themselves and each other, but you can let them know the proper way to do it and give them the option to stay safe - pretending that they somehow won't discover sex if they're never told about it is the reason that the Bible Belt has the largest teen pregnancy rate in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

No I'm pretty sure ignorance is ignorance, continuing to educate people is education. You can't stop hormonal teens from exploring themselves and each other, but you can let them know the proper way to do it and give them the option to stay safe - pretending that they somehow won't discover sex if they're never told about it is the reason that the Bible Belt has the largest teen pregnancy rate in the US.

---

Yes you can, through education and self-restraint. You talk as though sex is a disease you catch and cannot control, rather than a behaviour.

I am able to control my sex drive as are you, it's even more important for hormonal children to be able to.

And you think the way to do that is by adults pretending it doesn't exist, right

I'm sorry i dont remember the part of sex education where teachers screamed at all the kids to go have sex and get pregnant, did I miss this lesson?

dan in 10 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5xkxTfVLSA

Curiously, what are your reasons, as a gay man, to stay abstinent?

Sex is natural. It's a simple and easy way to make a connection with another person and sometimes we even manage to experience pleasure from it. Why should teens be discouraged rather than being taught to do it in a safe manner :s.


~~from phone

whats the link between child abuse and sex ed exactly? the article didnt explain it at all

Google images "13 year old sex" for an in depth analysis of this article


~~from phone

Not teaching kids about sex doesn't make them stop doing it. Loads of cases of unmarried teenage pregnancy were covered up in the 1950s and earlier. The girls who got pregnant often had absolutely no idea what was going on, and weren't even expecting a baby until it came.

And your idea of teaching them that sex is some kind of disease is ridiculous. I may not be completely comfortable with how much detail sex education lessons go into, but purposely teaching children incorrect information is unforgivable in my opinion. It would be morally wrong to consciously deceive children in the name of keeping them 'pure'.

edit inb4 someone mentions santa claus and the tooth fairy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

No I'm pretty sure ignorance is ignorance, continuing to educate people is education. You can't stop hormonal teens from exploring themselves and each other, but you can let them know the proper way to do it and give them the option to stay safe - pretending that they somehow won't discover sex if they're never told about it is the reason that the Bible Belt has the largest teen pregnancy rate in the US.

---

Love how Dan completely ignored this part of your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

And you think the way to do that is by adults pretending it doesn't exist, right

---

If a child is prone to sexual activities, then they should be taught to abstain from it and respect it as something for older people/a committed relationship rather than teaching them that it's okay to have sex in your teenage years when they're not fully developed as well as being naive to people who could abuse them sexually.

If you feel a need to teach children about sex, then teach them not to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle

Curiously, what are your reasons, as a gay man, to stay abstinent?

---

Moral reasons mainly but also health reasons considering how dangerous the activity is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle

Sex is natural. It's a simple and easy way to make a connection with another person and sometimes we even manage to experience pleasure from it. Why should teens be discouraged rather than being taught to do it in a safe manner :s.

---

Hey I haven't got a problem with most sex just as I haven't got a problem with people going out getting bladdered or smoking like a chimney, I do have a problem however when it involves children. Children haven't got the mindsets of adults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empired

Not teaching kids about sex doesn't make them stop doing it. Loads of cases of unmarried teenage pregnancy were covered up in the 1950s and earlier. The girls who got pregnant often had absolutely no idea what was going on, and weren't even expecting a baby until it came.

And your idea of teaching them that sex is some kind of disease is ridiculous. I may not be completely comfortable with how much detail sex education lessons go into, but purposely teaching children incorrect information is unforgivable in my opinion. It would be morally wrong to consciously deceive children in the name of keeping them 'pure'.

edit inb4 someone mentions santa claus and the tooth fairy

---

I didn't say it was a disease, I said the likes of Tom on the sexual revolutionary side of this argument treat sex as a disease as though you catch it (hormones) and it is GOING to happen where as i'm arguing sex between children doesn't have to happen if you teach them that just as you and I learn to control our sexual drives.

It's what separates mankind from the animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empired

but purposely teaching children incorrect information is unforgivable in my opinion. It would be morally wrong to consciously deceive children in the name of keeping them 'pure'.

edit inb4 someone mentions santa claus and the tooth fairy

---

religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I didn't say it was a disease, I said the likes of Tom on the sexual revolutionary side of this argument treat sex as a disease as though you catch it (hormones) and it is GOING to happen where as i'm arguing sex between children doesn't have to happen if you teach them that just as you and I learn to control our sexual drives.

It's what separates mankind from the animals.

---

Oh so you did. Still, how do you propose we teach children to 'control' themselves?
@David; most schools don't teach children to believe in a certain religion (other than religious schools obviously) but teaches them about them. How are we deceiving children by saying 'some people believe this', 'some people read these books', 'some people worship one God, some people worship many'?

how does this stop adults abusing children though? If children know what sex is and what's OK and not then how would they know if an adult is acting inappropriately? They won't know what's normal.

Just because you teach kids about sex it doesn't mean they're going to go out and do it! The majority don't, it's a minority who do it, and if they're not taught how to do it safely there's a much bigger chance of spreading diseases as well as teen pregnancy. It's a natural function to have sex, yeah people can suppress it (and some can live without it, ignoring those natural urges, I do also believe some people simply don't have those urges), but if your natural urges give way and these teens just do it, they might not know it is actually possible TO be safe, or unsafe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If a child is prone to sexual activities, then they should be taught to abstain from it
...
If you feel a need to teach children about sex, then teach them not to do it.

---

Why? Pre-puberty for sure, and I'm not claiming that it should be actively pushed for and encouraged for anyone no matter what their age/situation, but just saying "nope don't do it it's bad unless you're making a family" is ridiculous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I didn't say it was a disease, I said the likes of Tom on the sexual revolutionary side of this argument treat sex as a disease

---

Quite the opposite, a disease is an abnormal condition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

and it is GOING to happen where as i'm arguing sex between children doesn't have to happen if you teach them that

---

Forcing your specific morality on people while pretending to be an advocate for personal freedoms again tut tut

you teach kids alcohol and drugs are bad, and they're illegal (drugs completely, alcohol selling)

does this stop them? no.

they're going to do it regardless, so may as well teach them how to be safe about it.

PLUS, the only way to teach children abstinence is to tell them what sex is! If you brush over it a tiny bit just to say "be abstinent", more children will be curious and explore without guidance on what's safe or not. If you don't acknowledge the existence of sex, preaching ignorance, their natural instincts will take over and they won't even know what those instincts mean.

Adults will abuse children regardless of whether they've been taught sexual education or not. Sex ed should be there so that children are aware of what's happening to them in these instances and gives them that understanding that it's wrong.

Instead it's learning how to put a condom on over a banana, which as great as that is in teaching kids to practice safe sex if they got into it with somebody of a similar age, it doesn't teach them what to do or where to go if they're being abused. You call FRANK if you're having trouble with drugs, but I bet a 13 year old couldn't tell me who they call if they're being sexually abused. In my opinion it's not the lesson that's the problem, it's that what they're taught doesn't make them wiser in situations of abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyRy

Adults will abuse children regardless of whether they've been taught sexual education or not. Sex ed should be there so that children are aware of what's happening to them in these instances and gives them that understanding that it's wrong.

Instead it's learning how to put a condom on over a banana, which as great as that is in teaching kids to practice safe sex if they got into it with somebody of a similar age, it doesn't teach them what to do or where to go if they're being abused. You call FRANK if you're having trouble with drugs, but I bet a 13 year old couldn't tell me who they call if they're being sexually abused. In my opinion it's not the lesson that's the problem, it's that what they're taught doesn't make them wiser in situations of abuse.

---

To be fair we weren't taught anything about drugs at all. The only reason I know about FRANK is because of habbo lol.

And i agree. We had a lesson where we put condoms on bananas (all the girls were absolute pros whereas the boys wouldnt even unwrap the condom.. says a lot, eh) and got to mess around with these 'drunk glasses' things. In other lessons we watched what happens when you go to get checked for STDs and one boy had to go out and vomit at one point.
We were just told you can turn up 'at the hospital' to get yourself checked. I know for a fact this isn't true and if you turn up in outpatients asking them to examine you for chlamydia you will end up being very embarrassed indeed. Basically it's in a little building on a completely different site and tbh I should probably check if my school is still giving out false information about where to go.

Yeah oddly the condom on a banana thing has been around for decades and yet at my high school - an ALL BOYS school - we had that lesson only once ever and we had to loan prosthetic penii from the girl's school a couple of miles down the road, just weren't equipped well (LOLOLOLOL) in my day and nearly all "health ed" classes as they were called were about STDs rather than the mechanics of things. I don't know what it's like now but as far as I'm aware it isn't an instructional course in debauchery, just information about preventative and protective measures

we actually had a ***** on a stand to put condoms on (in sixth form, before that we just got to "feel them" - to this very day I've never put a condom on anything myself!!)

Yeah that's what we had to rob from the girl's school lmao so naturally we spent the entire time blowing up condoms and laughing at the rubber willy

ps Laura loves it bareback you heard it here first

Hey I didn't say that, just said I personally hadn't physically put one on! I keep getting confused between this thread and the other similar one but yknow to keep it on topic if I'd never had sex ed I wouldn't had known TO use birth control and std prevention

Isn't that like saying we panic about car safety but teach people how to drive? Sex is sex, driving is driving. Provided you make it safe you have nothing to worry about - and teaching children about sex and when to have it and who to talk to about it is making children safe about the dangers of sex including sex abuse.

Also, as a side note - isn't this a weird thing for you to say? You advocate not having sex out of principle yet you preach about it. Isn't that a tiny bit odd?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empired

Oh so you did. Still, how do you propose we teach children to 'control' themselves?
@David; most schools don't teach children to believe in a certain religion (other than religious schools obviously) but teaches them about them. How are we deceiving children by saying 'some people believe this', 'some people read these books', 'some people worship one God, some people worship many'?

---

No, if sex was like a disease (out of your control and something you catch) then it wouldn't be controllable. Are you making the claim that sex isn't something that you can control and is purely a behaviour? It is a behaviour, therefore it is controllable: which is why children shouldn't be taught how to have sex, but not to have sex until they are 16 or even 18 in my opinion.

I find the idea that children are being taught how to have sex appalling. They're naive KIDS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

how does this stop adults abusing children though? If children know what sex is and what's OK and not then how would they know if an adult is acting inappropriately? They won't know what's normal.

Just because you teach kids about sex it doesn't mean they're going to go out and do it! The majority don't, it's a minority who do it, and if they're not taught how to do it safely there's a much bigger chance of spreading diseases as well as teen pregnancy.

---

My point is that the more sex 'education' we've taught children, the more sexualised they've become. Even if you agree with sex education in principle, you must admit it has been a failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

It's a natural function to have sex, yeah people can suppress it (and some can live without it, ignoring those natural urges, I do also believe some people simply don't have those urges), but if your natural urges give way and these teens just do it, they might not know it is actually possible TO be safe, or unsafe.

---

Indeed it is a natural urge, and there's nothing wrong with people having sex: but there is something wrong when children aged 9 (or even younger) are being taught how to have sex when they're simply not capable of making such a huge decision. It amazes me that you cannot smoke until age 16, yet you're taught how to have SEX (potentially catch STDs, create a life, internal damage) by your teachers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Why? Pre-puberty for sure, and I'm not claiming that it should be actively pushed for and encouraged for anyone no matter what their age/situation, but just saying "nope don't do it it's bad unless you're making a family" is ridiculous

---

Where have I said or claimed that?

I think you're having a hard time dividing adults (who can do whatever they like) and children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Quite the opposite, a disease is an abnormal condition

---

Are sexual urges controllable? Yes.

So if you're going to teach children anything about sex (debatable itself) teach them to abstain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Forcing your specific morality on people while pretending to be an advocate for personal freedoms again tut tut

---

You must be joking, right? I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist which you seem to confuse with every thread on civil liberty issues. Children (not talking about adults AT ALL here) should be protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

you teach kids alcohol and drugs are bad, and they're illegal (drugs completely, alcohol selling)

does this stop them? no.

they're going to do it regardless, so may as well teach them how to be safe about it.

---

Our laws against illegal drugs are not enforced properly so that is a non-starter. British Police in 2014 are far too busy filling in piles of paperwork, driving around looking to fine motorists and investigating people who've caused 'offence' on Twitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

PLUS, the only way to teach children abstinence is to tell them what sex is! If you brush over it a tiny bit just to say "be abstinent", more children will be curious and explore without guidance on what's safe or not. If you don't acknowledge the existence of sex, preaching ignorance, their natural instincts will take over and they won't even know what those instincts mean.

---

I haven't a problem with teaching sex among animals generally in science classes, but when it comes to sex between humans they should be taught alongside that teaching to abstain as they are too young for such activities - rather than being taught HOW to have sex which is my problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Isn't that like saying we panic about car safety but teach people how to drive? Sex is sex, driving is driving. Provided you make it safe you have nothing to worry about - and teaching children about sex and when to have it and who to talk to about it is making children safe about the dangers of sex including sex abuse.

---

Children shouldn't be having sex, or do you think they should be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Also, as a side note - isn't this a weird thing for you to say? You advocate not having sex out of principle yet you preach about it. Isn't that a tiny bit odd?

---

I've no idea what my personal principled stance on gay sex has to do with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Where have I said or claimed that?

---

Inferred from "something for older people/a committed relationship", although if that's not what you meant then fair enough. Still an issue of you putting "morals" before the health and wellbeing of humans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I think you're having a hard time dividing adults (who can do whatever they like) and children.

---

There is a massive variance in when an individual person transitions from child to adult, both mentally and physically. A great many are matured in one way or another long before 16, some long after, but pretending that the former are merely cattle to be forced into a certain way of life rather than giving them the information to make their own choices (like we do with EVERYTHING else) is ridiculous. Children are not being told that they need to go and have sex, nor are they being given Cosmo sex tips on how to spice up a young relationship, they are being told how to make it safe when they decide to go for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Are sexual urges controllable? Yes.

So if you're going to teach children anything about sex (debatable itself) teach them to abstain.

---

If something can be controlled, it should be controlled - Dandertaker, self-proclaimed libertarian.
What you're doing here is completely failing to make an argument

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You must be joking, right? I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist which you seem to confuse with every thread on civil liberty issues. Children (not talking about adults AT ALL here) should be protected.

---

You're right they should, so let's give them the information they need to help protect themselves (unless you want to just lock them all up) rather than pretending sex doesn't exist. Glad you agree

I said in the other thread we WERE taught abstinence, which I do not agree with - but guess what! Two teen pregnancies before sixth form! You can teach abstinence all you want but you simply can't enforce it.

Just because it's illegal for under 16s, so is a lot of stuff and people will always find a way round it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Inferred from "something for older people/a committed relationship", although if that's not what you meant then fair enough. Still an issue of you putting "morals" before the health and wellbeing of humans

---

Utimately basic law is formed on basic (Christian) morality otherwise we'd allow pedophiles free reign, children to go up fireplaces and children to engage in sexual acts with one another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

There is a massive variance in when an individual person transitions from child to adult, both mentally and physically. A great many are matured in one way or another long before 16, some long after, but pretending that the former are merely cattle to be forced into a certain way of life rather than giving them the information to make their own choices (like we do with EVERYTHING else) is ridiculous. Children are not being told that they need to go and have sex, nor are they being given Cosmo sex tips on how to spice up a young relationship, they are being told how to make it safe when they decide to go for it.

---

They are children, they do not have a say or a choice in the matter. The law states you are an adult at 18 and with laws regarding sex at 16, now whilst it's true people develop at different rates it's also true that it's impossible to have a law for each person: hence why we have the ages of 16 and 18 as that of becoming an adult.

Heck, I would personally raise it all to 18 (adulthood) if it were me but there you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

If something can be controlled, it should be controlled - Dandertaker, self-proclaimed libertarian.
What you're doing here is completely failing to make an argument

---

You seem to be very confused as to what libertarianism is, libertarianism is not the right for children to be able to do what they want: that is for adults. Children are classified differently to adults because we understand children are not mentally grown up neither are they in terms of their biology.

For the hundredth time, stop (purposely?) confusing libertarianism with anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

You're right they should, so let's give them the information they need to help protect themselves (unless you want to just lock them all up) rather than pretending sex doesn't exist. Glad you agree

---

Yes they do need protecting, from sex itself - hence why sex is rightly illegal for children. So instead of normalising it among children, drill it into their heads that it is wrong until they are 16/18. The video wixard posted earlier on actually reaffirms how stupid the system is right now and which you advocate: DO NOT HAVE SEX KIDS.... but here's a pile of johnnys and lube. Absurd.

That's like handing a child a firework and a lighter, telling them what it does and then saying.. BUT DON'T DO IT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

I said in the other thread we WERE taught abstinence, which I do not agree with - but guess what! Two teen pregnancies before sixth form! You can teach abstinence all you want but you simply can't enforce it.

Just because it's illegal for under 16s, so is a lot of stuff and people will always find a way round it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

No system is infallible, my point is simply that the system we have now is a failure by all accounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Utimately basic law is formed on basic (Christian) morality otherwise we'd allow pedophiles free reign, children to go up fireplaces and children to engage in sexual acts with one another.



They are children, they do not have a say or a choice in the matter. The law states you are an adult at 18 and with laws regarding sex at 16, now whilst it's true people develop at different rates it's also true that it's impossible to have a law for each person: hence why we have the ages of 16 and 18 as that of becoming an adult.

Heck, I would personally raise it all to 18 (adulthood) if it were me but there you go.



You seem to be very confused as to what libertarianism is, libertarianism is not the right for children to be able to do what they want: that is for adults. Children are classified differently to adults because we understand children are not mentally grown up neither are they in terms of their biology.

For the hundredth time, stop (purposely?) confusing libertarianism with anarchy.

[FlyingJesus]You're right they should, so let's give them the information they need to help protect themselves (unless you want to just lock them all up) rather than pretending sex doesn't exist. Glad you agree

---

Yes they do need protecting, from sex itself - hence why sex is rightly illegal for children. So instead of normalising it among children, drill it into their heads that it is wrong until they are 16/18. The video wixard posted earlier on actually reaffirms how stupid the system is right now and which you advocate: DO NOT HAVE SEX KIDS.... but here's a pile of johnnys and lube. Absurd.



No system is infallible, my point is simply that the system we have now is a failure by all accounts.[/QUOTE]

How? The majority of teenagers don't get pregnant and don't spread STDs or anything. Hell, the majority of teenagers don't even have sex! It's just a select few. Whatever type of sex education we get (done properly, preaching safe sex and the laws and telling them of the importance of sex - yes I do agree kids should be told that it is a big deal and shouldn't just be done whenever you first feel like it), there are always going to be some who act on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

How? The majority of teenagers don't get pregnant and don't spread STDs or anything. Hell, the majority of teenagers don't even have sex! It's just a select few. Whatever type of sex education we get (done properly, preaching safe sex and the laws and telling them of the importance of sex - yes I do agree kids should be told that it is a big deal and shouldn't just be done whenever you first feel like it), there are always going to be some who act on it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Read the article, it stated clearly how rates of sexual promiscuity have rocketed since sex education was brought in (prevented from being much worse only by abortions, pills and condoms) which shows it has been an abject failure and that the situation would be much worse had it not been for mass abortions etc. Much in the same way 'education' for the gay 'community' has been a complete failure with incidents of HIV and Aids absolutely skyrocketing. Teaching curious children how to have sex simply plants the idea in their heads how to go and actually do it.

Ultimately no system is perfect, but the one we have at the moment is a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Read the article, it stated clearly how rates of sexual promiscuity have rocketed since sex education was brought in (prevented from being much worse only by abortions, pills and condoms) which shows it has been an abject failure and that the situation would be much worse had it not been for mass abortions etc. Much in the same way 'education' for the gay 'community' has been a complete failure with incidents of HIV and Aids absolutely skyrocketing. Teaching curious children how to have sex simply plants the idea in their heads how to go and actually do it.

Ultimately no system is perfect, but the one we have at the moment is a disaster.

---

How can you quantify promiscuity? How can you quantify if it's a "disaster" or not? Teen pregnancy rates are dropping - I can't find any stats for ALL stds but the ones I have seen have seen an increase leading up to around the millennium where they start dropping again (when the 'taboo' nature of sex education was really finally dropped a bit).

I tend to avoid reading Mail comment because they're usually full of pseudo-facts and opinion that's completely un backed-up but here we go:

Quote:

---

The mystery of sex education is that parents put up with it at all. It began about 50 years ago, on the pretext that it would reduce unmarried teen pregnancies and sexual diseases. Every time these problems got worse, the answer was more sex education, more explicit than before.

---

Well as I linked above, teen pregnancy rates have dropped. Around the bible belt in America (as Tom said), teen pregnancy rates are pretty much the biggest in the developed world...

Quote:

---

Since then, unmarried pregnancies have become pretty much normal, and sexual diseases – and the ‘use’ of pornography – are an epidemic.

---

Nothing to do with sex education this - unmarried pregnancies have become more common yes, but so have the amount of couples not wanting to get married.

Sexual diseases, they're being brought under control with the implementation of more education across the educational board (as in up to University) about what you can do to stop these...

Pornography - well goodness knows how you call this an epidemic. It's a way for people to release that tension who have less of an imagination to have a visual stimulus. Can't catch the clap off porn!

Quote:

---

It is only thanks to frantic free handouts of ‘morning after’ pills and an abortion massacre that the number of teenage mothers has finally begun to level off after decades in which it zoomed upwards across the graph paper.

---

Right so what we're going to do is say that teen pregnancies are really bad then vilify measures to stop it...

Quote:

---

In a normal, reasonable society, a failure as big as this would cause a change of mind. Not here.

---

I'm still failing to see the failure he's talking about?

Quote:

---

If you try to question sex education, you are screamed at by fanatics. This is because it isn’t, and never has been, what it claims to be. Sex education is propaganda for the permissive society. It was invented by the communist George Lukacs, schools commissar during the insane Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919, to debauch the morals of Christian schoolgirls.

---

Sex education is EDUCATION before kids go off and do something without knowing what they're doing

Quote:

---

It works by breaking taboos and by portraying actions as normal that would once have been seen as wrong. Last week we learned that the Government has officially endorsed material which says sex at 13, ‘for those of similar age and developmental ability’, is normal.

---

Right... where is this material exactly? Doesn't seem to be any link or anything so if you could find that I'd love it. I very much highly doubt the Government has said sex at 13 is "normal", because quite frankly it's not

Quote:

---

This is, no doubt, a point of view. In a free society, people are entitled to hold it, even if it is rather creepy. But do you want your child’s school to endorse it? And how does it square with our incessant frenzied panic about child sex abuse?

---

Well like I said, I don't think the government is teaching kids it's OK to have sex at 13 seeing as the law says it's not... I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT SEE HOW IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEX ABUSE though, whatever we teach kids it's not going to stop adults from abusing said children in that way?!!?!

Quote:

---

If we are so keen on the innocence of the young – and I very much think we should be – then surely this sort of radical propaganda is deeply dangerous. We do not give schools this huge power over the minds of the young for such a purpose.

---

Yup let's keep preaching ignorance because nothing's more fun than children being completely naive of the world and therefore more likely to be taken advantage of!

Quote:

---

How odd it is that we teach 13-year-olds to go forth and multiply, but can’t somehow teach them their times tables. Shouldn’t it be the other way round?

---

Well most 13 year olds are expected to know their times tables. Completely arbitrary and useless comment to wrap up a completely useless and factless article.

And I STILL don't understand what the "failure" is. Please, spell it out to me in very simple English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

How can you quantify promiscuity? How can you quantify if it's a "disaster" or not? Teen pregnancy rates are dropping - I can't find any stats for ALL stds but the ones I have seen have seen an increase leading up to around the millennium where they start dropping again (when the 'taboo' nature of sex education was really finally dropped a bit).

I tend to avoid reading Mail comment because they're usually full of pseudo-facts and opinion that's completely un backed-up but here we go:

---

If you read what the article stated, which isn't a Daily Mail comment but by a conservative author, commentator and journalist you'll see that he stated had it not been for mass abortions as well as contraceptives the rate right now would be much higher: in short, they suppress the real problem of sexual promiscuity.

As for the argument society hasn't become more sexually liberalised, really? Attiudes towards all sexual debates today are hugely different than they were in the 1950s: of which sex education has had just a small part in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Well as I linked above, teen pregnancy rates have dropped. Around the bible belt in America (as Tom said), teen pregnancy rates are pretty much the biggest in the developed world...

---

The Bible Belt culturally is very different, you only have to look back at attitudes in our own country towards sex back in the pre-1960s era to realise the huge change that has taken place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Nothing to do with sex education this - unmarried pregnancies have become more common yes, but so have the amount of couples not wanting to get married.

---

Exactly, so see how attitudes have changed towards sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Sexual diseases, they're being brought under control with the implementation of more education across the educational board (as in up to University) about what you can do to stop these...

---

No they haven't - millions have been spent since the 1980s on gay mens health in regards to HIV and Aids and yet the figure just keeps climbing with over 50% of new HIV infections a year coming from gay men It's estimated 1 in 10 in London now have HIV from what I have read before.

A complete policy failure, more 'education' (ie handing out condoms) hasn't worked at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Pornography - well goodness knows how you call this an epidemic. It's a way for people to release that tension who have less of an imagination to have a visual stimulus. Can't catch the clap off porn!

---

Pornography isn't my complaint here, much rather hormonal kids did this than be handed condoms by their teachers and taught "kids don't have sex.... but here's how you do it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Right so what we're going to do is say that teen pregnancies are really bad then vilify measures to stop it...

---

They've got worse since all of this came in, so the 'measures' you support have failed.

My point is considering they've failed, why keep at them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

I'm still failing to see the failure he's talking about?

---

...since sex education was brought in teenage pregnancies have risen, abortions have risen and STDs have risen. So Hitchens makes the point and has done in the past that either sex education has *contributed* to this rise OR if not, it has failed to stop the rise.

Either way, it is a failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Sex education is EDUCATION before kids go off and do something without knowing what they're doing

---

But that's the point isn't it. By this reply I can see you don't have opposition to children having sex with one another, because rather than say that sex between children is wrong you simply don't want them to do the act itself wrongly. And that's our difference on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Right... where is this material exactly? Doesn't seem to be any link or anything so if you could find that I'd love it. I very much highly doubt the Government has said sex at 13 is "normal", because quite frankly it's not

---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...rowing-up.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Well like I said, I don't think the government is teaching kids it's OK to have sex at 13 seeing as the law says it's not... I ABSOLUTELY CANNOT SEE HOW IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEX ABUSE though, whatever we teach kids it's not going to stop adults from abusing said children in that way?!!?!

---

If children, who are curious and naive by nature, are taught to fear and repel something (sex) as I would prefer - do you think this would make them more or less subject to sexual abuse by an adult than it would if you taught children it is okay to have sex and here's how to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Yup let's keep preaching ignorance because nothing's more fun than children being completely naive of the world and therefore more likely to be taken advantage of!

---

The ignorance is that you want to continue with a policy that has failed. I want something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

Well most 13 year olds are expected to know their times tables. Completely arbitrary and useless comment to wrap up a completely useless and factless article.

---

They are but seemingly our piss poor education system thinks learning how to put a condom on your boyfriends **** at age 11 is more important than such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

And I STILL don't understand what the "failure" is. Please, spell it out to me in very simple English.

---

More STDs.
More teenage pregnancies.
More teenagers having sex.
More abortions among children.

You still seem to be labouring under the impression that children are actually being told to go out and have sex, which is nonsense. You're also still yet to actually state why you think sex should be suppressed other than "because it can". Your ideals seem to state that we ought to keep children under lock and key until their 18th birthday and then magically set them free and believe they'll somehow be equipped for adulthood in spite of state-enforced ignorance. It simply makes no sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If you read what the article stated, which isn't a Daily Mail comment but by a conservative author, commentator and journalist you'll see that he stated had it not been for mass abortions as well as contraceptives the rate right now would be much higher: in short, they suppress the real problem of sexual promiscuity.

---

And why is promiscuity bad if we've reached a point where we can control the negative aspects of it through birth control and treatment for std's? Just because it doesn't fit your idea of what society should be like doesn't mean it's bad. I know you and Hitchens both long for the days of the cereal box nuclear family but that's just a fantasy.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qkNqrys0yH...e_wiggins_.jpg
In reality suppressing information about sex and restricting access to contraceptives leads to higher teen pregnancy and std rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If you read what the article stated, which isn't a Daily Mail comment but by a conservative author, commentator and journalist you'll see that he stated had it not been for mass abortions as well as contraceptives the rate right now would be much higher: in short, they suppress the real problem of sexual promiscuity.

As for the argument society hasn't become more sexually liberalised, really? Attiudes towards all sexual debates today are hugely different than they were in the 1950s: of which sex education has had just a small part in.



The Bible Belt culturally is very different, you only have to look back at attitudes in our own country towards sex back in the pre-1960s era to realise the huge change that has taken place.



Exactly, so see how attitudes have changed towards sex.



No they haven't - millions have been spent since the 1980s on gay mens health in regards to HIV and Aids and yet the figure just keeps climbing with over 50% of new HIV infections a year coming from gay men It's estimated 1 in 10 in London now have HIV from what I have read before.

A complete policy failure, more 'education' (ie handing out condoms) hasn't worked at all.



Pornography isn't my complaint here, much rather hormonal kids did this than be handed condoms by their teachers and taught "kids don't have sex.... but here's how you do it".



They've got worse since all of this came in, so the 'measures' you support have failed.

My point is considering they've failed, why keep at them?



...since sex education was brought in teenage pregnancies have risen, abortions have risen and STDs have risen. So Hitchens makes the point and has done in the past that either sex education has *contributed* to this rise OR if not, it has failed to stop the rise.

Either way, it is a failure.



But that's the point isn't it. By this reply I can see you don't have opposition to children having sex with one another, because rather than say that sex between children is wrong you simply don't want them to do the act itself wrongly. And that's our difference on this.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...rowing-up.html



If children, who are curious and naive by nature, are taught to fear and repel something (sex) as I would prefer - do you think this would make them more or less subject to sexual abuse by an adult than it would if you taught children it is okay to have sex and here's how to do it.



The ignorance is that you want to continue with a policy that has failed. I want something new.



They are but seemingly our piss poor education system thinks learning how to put a condom on your boyfriends **** at age 11 is more important than such a thing.



More STDs.
More teenage pregnancies.
More teenagers having sex.
More abortions among children.

---

I'm not going to reply to each section as I've pretty much covered every logical point in my previous posts. Children aren't taught to go have sex - in fact many ARE taught abstinence in their schools, or at least the importance of sex in a relationship and the maturity levels that should accompany with.

I still fail to see how the policy is failing when teen pregnancy rates are falling (bash on about the morning after pill and abortions as much as you want but at least these are SAFE ways to terminate a pregnancy unlike the ol' hanger up or push down the stairs). Your little list at the end is laughable really.

> More STDs
No. Cannot be proven. More STD DIAGNOSES, yes. The screening process has become a lot easier, cheaper, cleaner and accessible so more people are being diagnosed - this doesn't mean more people have them. More people are also getting TREATED for them, which is helping to stem the spread.

> More teen pregnancies
Again, no. Teen pregnancy rates are falling in the UK. Depending on how far you're looking back, it may have a general upwards trend in the last 100 years but 100 years ago if a teenager became pregnant they were much more likely to be locked away and hidden from society - our medical records and databases that store these things have become a lot more encompassing recently (I'm talking since the mid to late 20th century) so we don't know how accurate the last ones were. Attitudes to sex have changed since then, because people have learnt that suppressing natural urges isn't natural (surprise surprise)

> More teenagers having sex
Right. There is 100% definitely literally no data that can ever prove this. Teens lie all the time about when they lost their virginity, if they're having sex: I did it myself, someone who I was very close to told me recently they lied about it and I'm sure a huge percentage of people have - although I don't think this is right, and children should be taught that there's no shame in staying a virgin and it's way more normal than they think. You don't know how many teens are having sex now, and you don't know how many teens were having sex years ago. Like many people who share your views, you seem to latch onto something without really any factual backing and defend that to the death.

> More abortions among children.
No. And whether you believe it's right or not (whether I believe it's right or not either), abortion is a SAFE option when you have no idea what could have happened before or what danger the mother or child is in if it was carried to term.

And you've still not said how this has ANYTHING to do with child abuse as your thread title says.... to use this example in another context to hopefully show you how ridiculous the title looks...

Let's not teach people about what domestic abuse is because it will stop domestic abusers!!!!

...no.