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

[FlyingJesus]

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

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.

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

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

[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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[lawrawrrr]

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

[lawrawrrr]

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:

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...

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!

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...

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?

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

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

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?!!?!

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!

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[FlyingJesus]

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

[The Don]

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.

In reality suppressing information about sex and restricting access to contraceptives leads to higher teen pregnancy and std rates.

[lawrawrrr]

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.