WHO Standards for Sexual Education

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by Ekhangel, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. Ekhangel

    Ekhangel Fapstronaut

    569
    463
    63
    I've been writing an elaborate post, when my f****g browser froze and I lost it all. So, I'm just gonna put a long story short, since I don't have the patience to reproduce all I wrote.

    This September, my country is implementing the WHO Standards for Sexual Education, which, among others, command masturbation as well as knowledge on "sex in the media (including Internet)" (page 42) be known to 6-9 year olds, along with a set of other, progressive bullshit to be taught to your kid (determining your gender, learning on different family patters and things of that sort).

    I'm not going to get into an endless debate whether gay families should be presented as being acceptable or not - I don't care, since I'm not gay. What I care about however is asking you whether you think it's acceptable for the government to impose their progressive and oh-so-modern mindset on people who have established their own upbringing plans for their offspring. Those of you here who come from the land of the free and the home of the brave (USA) perhaps are not yet aware that throughout Europe state education is compulsory, and in most cases even private schools have to educate children according to the state-approved curriculum.

    So, as a fapstronaut and thus natural admirer of self-restraint, you are going to have your kid exposed to all the wonders of the modern world, including masturbation, pornography and prostitution. But HEY - these are OBVIOUSLY going to be presented in a strictly "objective" manner so that the kid can make (and "discuss among themselves") THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS AND CHOICES regarding axiological matters of moral sort - I'd perhaps laugh at this if I didn't find it too tragic.

    I personally am embittered to the core by the way the Old Continent is turning more and more fascist... or socialist - no big difference in fact, these are both totalitarian ideas. Needless to say that if you decide to keep your kid home, police will soon knock to your door and take it by force, as it has already done in more than few cases. You can apply for home tutoring indeed, but eventually your child will have to pass state-approved exams, so either way you can't help "progress" pouring into his brain.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2014
  2. Tschoo

    Tschoo Fapstronaut

    74
    3
    8
    Children would get in contact with porn anyway, there is absolutely nothing that a parent could do about this and I welcome every measure that equippes youngsters with the tools to navigate through the internet and life in general. Exactly by doing nothing and not telling children about the dangers of excessive use of the internet we make the mistake to leave them vulnerable, because they are not aware that most porn isn't a representation or expression of love.
    But if we are able to tell them now, hey watch out for this and that, and give them a positve picture about their bodies and their sexuality, I think that is a good measure.

    Or do you think that this is a measure forced upon you, like an unwanted dogma?

    The only alternative that I would see is banning erotica completly from the internet, but that just makes the liberal inside of me cringe.
     
  3. Ekhangel

    Ekhangel Fapstronaut

    569
    463
    63
    Do you seriously think that a school that has a directive to teach 6 year olds about the "pleasures of masturbation" is going to present pornography as "not a representation or expression of love"?

    Besides that - I do think it's absolutely necessary to raise awareness about these things among children. But this must not be done by schools, especially that I highly doubt the method of doing so will bring the desired result. I think it will be just the other way round. Actually, last week I was talking with my former school friend about the "sex education lessons" we had back in the middle school. He admitted to have been rather shocked from hearing a story about a guy addicted to masturbation. But he also admitted that it didn't discourage him to masturbate - he wasn't even masturbating before anyway. In fact, it only encouraged him to try it for himself. And so he now masturbates daily - doesn't see it as a problem, obviously. He's now getting into a relationship with a chick with which he first drunk-kissed on a party and only then got to know her name. And he comes from a firm, Christian family of people who, however, don't give too much shit about Christianity other than just by showing up at the church every Sunday to make it look like they're good people.

    When I tell him that by maintaining NoFap I at the same time demand from life to meet decent girls, he said "oh, you know the times we live in... besides, everyone has his needs".
     
  4. Tschoo

    Tschoo Fapstronaut

    74
    3
    8
    No, I never said anything about the "pleasures of masturbation" my answer was only concerned on how children come in contact with sex on the internet and how it will benefit them if they get the tools to deal with it.

    I dont know, Im not so sure about the masturbation thing, I found that out by myself quite fine. Maybe its an unnecessary measure but I don't think its immoral or speeds up a decay of values.

    Schools are a platform to make people equal.I think we would benefit if sex education is properly implemented in our schools, because I have more trust in state schools than in individual parents. Families can have all sorts of problems and schools are a neutral platform which presents information, which would not have been accessible otherwise.

    Thats the whole idea mate. We WANT that the first contact to sexuality is a constructive one. If this friend of yours wouldn't have been confronted with masturbation in school he would have been confronted by the media, the internet etc. Like I said, what schools are doing is trying to provide a positve picture of sexuality before kids get confronted with say, hardcore pornography. If someone, like your friend, has seen the dangers of things like masturbation addiction or the relapse to extreme porn, and still goes on afterwards, maybe developing an addiction to porn, the school can at least say: "Hey, we tried"

    It's just naive to think that by not teaching about masturbation and sex we will get rid of porn addiction etc. because no matter what you do, curiosity will some day get the better of each and every one and then they will look at porn, without tools, without any information up front about the dangers. Seems kinda counter-intuitive to me.

    But I have the feeling that you are condemning masturbation and not just porn. Do you think that masturbation itself is unhealthy? I think the objective of this forum is to reduce masturbation habits back to a healthy minimum and not to give it up completly. That just seems to stem from a moralic motivation that rejects masturbation because of it inherent moral value and not because of health reasons.
     
  5. Ekhangel

    Ekhangel Fapstronaut

    569
    463
    63
    This sentence alone proves how different our mindsets are. I don't believe in equality, I don't want equality, I despise equality. People have never been and never will be equal, it's an absolutely dangerous and wrong ideal to pursue, as proven by history.

    So you trust the minister of education more than you trust in that you or your friends will be able to convey certain ideas to your children' brains. Okay, well... Just please, don't force me to share this trust by means of legal acts.

    I've never been confronted with heroin by anything. I believe it can be the same with porn. + I don't need to try a doze of heroin to know that I don't really want it. Moreover - I never had any school lessons about the threats of heroin.

    I believe that with proper upbringing and properly set culture, an image of a blonde with unnaturally large tits riding a black cock can actually awaken disgust rather than curiosity. The task of the adults (NOT government) is to provide positive counter-examples and establish said culture.

    As for whether I condemn masturbation - yes, I do. Unless you can reduce it the level of mere physiological activity, without any stimulation from your imagination or from pornography. Then I don't care. But I myself am not capable of that and I don't think many people are. So I naturally condemn masturbation as the beginning and the root of what comes afterwards.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2014
  6. Tschoo

    Tschoo Fapstronaut

    74
    3
    8
    Ahh I see. The USSR has left deep scarves on you and your trust in governments and anything state sponsored. I recognize that people are different, but you have to think this through.

    You see becoming equal in education and maybe also in views on the world as bad, right? Brainwashing you into believing THEIR ideas, the ideas of the state.
    But you always have to look at it this way: What is the "moral level" of an individual? Answer: It depends. If a kid comes from a shining background, with all possible "good" moral attitudes about him, already informed about everything he needs to know about the world and also capable of making good decisions about how he wants to handle his sexuality.

    Maybe here we will see a "drop in values", like by unvoluntarily getting in close contact with graphic material which will lead him to abuse of the same materials and a decay of values.(like relapse to extreme porn).

    But if a kid comes from a "bad" family, an unresponsible family where hardcore pornography is running 24/7 and a destructive expression of sexuality is encouraged, wouldn't it be good if that kid got into contact with ideas like love, true connection and a good self-image of the body by the state, aka in schools? Here we will maybe see an improvement in the kid, maybe measured in how destructive/constructive his expression of his sexuality is afterwards.

    No, I am 100 % assured that I and my friends will raise our childrens just fine, but I think that there are familiy situations out there that disrupt a positve and loving upbringing+education about life and that it is therefore reasonable to have this "safety-net" by the state that is at least attempting to better the situation of the less fortunate kids who maybe have a background full of absurd perceptions of what sex even is.

    I agree with you in some way here. If all people would be good and all parents would be good parents and would provide children with the basic information they need about the world and its dangers then there would be no need for state education whatsoever, but as we all know, the world is kind of fucked up and there are people out there, who don't deserve to call themselves "parents".

    Yeah, but confusing heroin and masturbation with each other is just silly. Heroine isn't caused by "a natural drive" like masturbation. Sex is a basic instinct and the desire for sex will very probably cause masturbation someday.
    The abuse of drugs, on the other hand, can have all sorts of reasons, like a bad background or a self-destructive way of live, but it is certainly unreasonable to put it on the same level as the need for sex, which needs no bad history at all, its just basic human behavior.

    I doubt that a "proper upbrining and properly set culture" will change anything. Yeah, if we would be less free about sexual depictiion kids would maybe be disgusted at the delightful picture you painted. But still, other eroticas will arise and will take the place in a "good society". The desire and curiousity for sex was always there and will always be there; it is like a steam pipe, and no matter how hard you try or how conservative the culture is you live in, sexuality will always find an expression for itself.

    The only responsibility that we have now is that this "steam" gets released in a healthy way, with healthy instructions, with healthy role models and that we don't fall prey to an ever more desensitivised society that stops giving a damn about how abusive, how unrealistic and how damaging some eroticas have become.
    We have to lead the "steam" through the pipe and give it healthy outlets; this is where state AND parents should play the role of providing the possibility for such.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2014
  7. Ekhangel

    Ekhangel Fapstronaut

    569
    463
    63
    If he gets in close contact with "graphic material", he will - provided his parents have brought him up in an appropriate way - communicate it to his parents and talk it through before abusing it. I'm not saying many parents achieve it nowadays, but that's what I'm aiming at.

    Absolutely not. First of all, if he were to be put in the same school with the good kids, he would demoralize them, especially if kids of his sort were in majority - like nowadays. Well, maybe the majority doesn't come from environments where "hardcore pornography is running 24/7", but the majority is coming from people who don't give a shit, like the parents of my friend. You need to understand we're in horrid minority here.

    Second of all, a government cannot promote "love or true connection", unless you really mean NWO brainwashing. The ultimate purpose of a school is to educate in theory, for f*** sake - you cannot "teach" anyone to love or respect anything. These valors are propagated by setting examples by noble (family/monarchy) authorities. If you tell a kid that family is good and important and them put him in front of MTV for 3 hours, what example do you think he'll follow?

    Besides, you cannot PAY (for education) to CONVINCE anyone to be a better person. The world is a cruel place and most people learn best from suffering. The very reason and foundations of establishing family is to provide continuous emotional, moral and economic support for generations to come - to create generational links. Those that fail to do so for reasons of their mental incapacity must be doomed to become either slaves of those better off or to die in loneliness and misery. There is absolutely no other option if you truly want the family ideal to prevail in the society, instead of the MTV one. If you give "free" education to those who don't care, they will never respect it. In fact, it will only reinforce their unjustified demands; they'll put more and more pressure on you, and - being in majority nowadays - will soon crush you. What I'm willing to do here is R-E-M-A-R-G-I-N-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N (remember that word) of promiscuity and lack of restraint so necessary for civilizational, economical and cultural prosperity. Sex industry must be brought to retreat, not to prevail.

    And yes - the change I want to see is "positive". I am not willing to impose any moral laws or restrictions on anyone. What I want to is promote cultural mindset of MY preference by SETTING POSITIVE EXAMPLE. But this is impossible when you have the government taking away your money and distributing it as it pleases to spoil your kids by mingling them with those that are absolutely incompatible with your preferences.

    And again: you still seem to believe that the WHO-based schools will promote the classical family ideal. What the aforesaid document contains are guidelines on teaching 6-9 kids the wonders of masturbation, and then discussing pornography and prostitution with them. Do you REALLY believe these will be presented as undesired, or perhaps as "the way some people prefer to do it, but I would suggest you guys thought it over yourselves"?

    This is empty rhetoric - masturbation also may have many reasons: handling stress, loneliness, horniness... are you claiming that watching porn is a "basic instinct"? Perhaps! But I writing this post am too acting on my "basic instincts" of willing to establish order that I like, and to destroy the one I hate. It's a perfectly NATURAL behavior, also seen in animals, and I'm proud of it.

    What do you mean by "healthy"? Are you claiming that people around here who have been abstaining for 200+ days are "sick"? What are your specific proposals for the ways to manage the steam? By refering to "some eroticas", are you perhaps suggesting that we should promote "clean pornography"? Are you aware of the Coolidge Effect?
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2014
  8. Tschoo

    Tschoo Fapstronaut

    74
    3
    8
    Yeah, I confess that teaching "love and compassion" is probably shit talk from me, but a school can still cultivate a positive picture about yourself, self-confidence, etc. Schools have influence, maybe less than their parents, but the influence avaiable should be used to inform, educate and help them with their lives. I like the idea that my kid may some day have a teacher that he can go to and ask about things that I may not have an appropriate answer for, may it be because I am involved in the conflict situatuation or because
    I don't have the information he needs.

    Well, is your solution then to say "fuck you" to all the children that don't come from a good background?
    You seem to have this weird idea in your head of natural selection of those who come from a less fortunate.
    My brother actually thinks the same way as you: the world is a fatalistic place where people are where they belong, destined by fate, without chance for raising their living quality. You seem to be more afraid of THE OTHER kids having a bad influence on your children than about the well being of all children in a society in general.

    Okay, I will remember the word REMARGINALIZATION, thank you very much. But I am not sharing your prude views; I am also for a reduce in sexualisation of our society, but not for completly repressing it and entering into a new Victorian age. Sex is there and by repressing it altogether you will solve nothing.

    But as I see you are trying to solve this by setting a positve example, which I am quite fond of. Im glad that we agree both that forcing people by law isn't the right way to go, but I think your positive picture and my positve picture still are far apart from each other.

    Well, like I said, I dont think the government is doing anything bad here, just passing on knowledge that is thought to be helpful by the majority of people. I guess it sucks for you to be in the puritan minority then lol. But for me that doesnt cut into liberal, individualistic rights; those kids dont get a certain view of the world forced onto them, like encouraging a relentless hedonistic view, but they get presented with WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE WORLD in an objective and constructive way + the tools to deal with them. If this is in your mindset something bad, something damaging, then yeah I guess thats understandable, but you will only find very few people who share this narrow point of view.

    No, like I said before I made a mistake of asserting that schools have guidelines for promoting love etc. thats something too complex for a school; what the heck is the classical family ideal?

    Why is it so hard to grasp for you that kids will get in contact with that stuff ANYWAY, there is NOTHING you can do about to prevent children from getting in contact with THE WORLD. And the more fucked up the world is, the better it is to get information and tools to deal with the dangers beforehand. You cant protect children from the dangers of the world by just not telling them about them. Thats just like pretending something isnt there when it clearly is, leaving kids vulnerable.

    No, its not empty rhetoric at all, you are the one doing that just fine. There are two things that seems absolutely basic to me: that living beings want to live and keep living by eating and that they want to reproduce. This is just common sense. We ARE sexual beings, because we HAVE TO REPRODUCE, thats just the bottom line, the ABC of living. Thats why I say that this is a basic instinct and that this basic instinct then LEADS to self-experimentation with your own body.

    But this is no necessity, its just very very probable. For example the Awa tribe doesn't even have the concept of masturbation, they don't understand it, but this is literally the only society of the Awa in the world that doesnt know this concept. But it is very probable that our basic need for sex triggers masturbation with a high probability, but not with certainity like with the Awa, and that is therefore unlogical that masturbation has "some evil root" like stress or loneliness.

    I don't think that there is watching porn is a basic instinct, thats culture; but in a broad sense being excited by humans copulating seems kinda natural to me, but what I am against is abuse and excessive use of porn and sexual depiction.

    I think no one in the whole world will agree with you that "the need to establish an order that you like", if such a need even exists, is more basic than the sex drive.

    No, I am not saying that people with 200 day + are sick, I congratulate them for their strong will.
    My point is: Humans need sex. And if there is no outlet for this drive either by real sex or by masturbation, this will lead to aggression and if not acted on at all, like in celibacy, to a reduced libido over all. And even then the sex drive will finds its way (ask 'em catholic priests);
    So I don't really see a problem with masturbation if one has no partner at the moment to have real sex, because masturbation is also sex, self-sex and I think its a healthy way to let off steam.

    I never made a secret about not rejecting porn in itself. I had an interesting discussion with Alex, where I differentiated different kinds of porn, from abusive porn that should be forbidden up to "vanilla porn" which has no real value in itself except for satisfying a need and "good porn", porn like feminist porn that doesnt violate the image of women or sexual techniques of the kamasutra.
    I think its okay to watch good porn on occasion.
    I am aware of the Coolidge effect and thats really the only reason why I am on this forum anyway, and because I want to know what the world looks like after reversing brain changes caused by porn; but as far as I am concerned the coolidge effect and the ED that comes with it, only happens if porn is watched on a daily basis and not occasionaly like once or twice month. I am for moderation, but not for rigid restriction.
     
  9. Ekhangel

    Ekhangel Fapstronaut

    569
    463
    63
    Look Tschoo, we two share completely different views on the basic principles of social and political interactions. I myself am not a democrat, not an egalitarian. You claim that preventing YOUR children (I don't care for OTHERS' CHILDREN - I CARE FOR MY CHILDREN) access from any porn material whatsoever is impossible. Well, if you assume they mingle with low society in "liberal", public schools, then obviously this is unavoidable. But this is precisely why I am not in favor of public, compulsory education, especially with curriculum of the WHO sort.

    Then you say you can't protect children from things by not telling them about them. The way I would settle this with my son is I would tell him during one of our Sunday evening chats that there are lots of greedy people in this world who try to earn money on your weakness, and the purpose of family is to stick together to render ourselves immune to it. Then I would obviously discuss with him different things by which this is done. I don't need the government to explain to him all kinds of sexual positions and different types of prostitution, like the WHO guidelines suggest. And yes, I would condemn any kind of pornography, I don't accept any variations in this matter. If you perceive some sort of "erotica" as attractive, then go on watching it. I myself and my future son have higher objects of beauty to strive for. Human body is certainly beautiful, but cheap exhibitionism and bitchiness isn't. I'd rather see sculptures of naked men of the ancient Greece sort on the streets than PornHub adverts. Nakedness is nothing to be ashamed of, but it must be presented with a taste and must point out to the purpose it serves, this NOT being solely sexual, physical pleasure.

    That said, if you are into legalized stealing of my money for the sake of financing an institution that deprives me of my right to educate my son according to my preferences, and isolating him from what I find wrong, then you sir will be opposed by me with any possible means. What many leftists also fail to understand is that "legally enforced en masse" goodness and kindness is always depraved and degenerated eventually, because for goodness to prevail it must be voluntary, as Jesus Christ teaches (not that I'm a Christian).

    Of course, I too am very much excited about humans copulating - myself and my wife particularly. Not my neighbors. If you like the latter, then stay away from me, please.

    It doesn't necessarily have to be "more basic" than sex drive, but it certainly is of higher priority, at least to me, as well as to our European ancestors who fought and conquered most of the world thanks to their hard work and devotion to certain ideals higher than just lying on a sofa and watching TV. But then, you probably think wars must absolutely be avoided, no matter the cost, so you won't get this argument. This is one of the fundamental differences between us that forbid us reaching understanding.

    Sex for a noble and responsible man is means to reinforce an emotional bond. Anything that serves a different purpose is by him avoided as degenerate. So unless you want to reinforce an emotional bond with yourself (because of some psychological disturbances, perhaps?), I don't see a point in masturbating. I know it's physically pleasurable obviously, but so is pissing at a tree in the park, and yet you somehow abstain from it because "people would see". Well, again - noble men have that sense of responsibility in their actions towards future generations to come and the general image of the world that they live in. And that alone is the driving force for many believers and moralists out here (meaning those who don't do it just for ED reasons) to give up masturbation for good. You perhaps do not feel anything of this sort, nor do you share passions of that kind; that's fine by me. What only outrages me is that you're politically forcing me to send my child for school classes with your child, so that you child may spoil mine.

    As for telling kids with bad background to fuck off - no, I'm telling their parents to fuck off my wallet, for if they don't display commitment, they do not deserve any financial benefits. Separating a child from a family is very sad indeed, and should be avoided. But if the parent is unable to keep his child by his side, then the child will wander around the world alone, unfortunately. But in a libertarian society there are plenty of ways for that child to make a living - he can work (provided there is no wretched socialist out there to establish minimum wages or minimum working age), he can educate (if he wants to), he can be encouraged and supported by religious or just charity institutions of any sort. There really are people out there who don't only care for money. People with a higher sense of beauty than just for filling their bank accounts and stomachs really do exist. These people are brought to margin by a totalitarian socialist democracy that takes over all spheres of life with money collected from citizens, thus depriving them of the possibility to act on their own - but also destroying mentality of people who are self-responsible, instead creating a mentality of slaves that must be taken care of.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
  10. Tschoo

    Tschoo Fapstronaut

    74
    3
    8
    Haha, you are such an elitist, its ridiculous. Go on, live in your perfect little dream world where there is sugar raining from the sky and the "ordinary people" are out of sight. How the hell can you be against public schools? Not everybody can AFFORD to send their children to a private school: if there wouldn't be public schools, some children wouldn't go to school AT ALL. And all of that because you are against some basic information about sex? geez. I don't even know why you bother so much, since you will probably indoctrinate your children anyway with your elitist, puritan thinking; if you don't give a damn about OTHER children, then why even worry?

    The problem with your thinking is that you always depart from YOUR SITUATION while we are talking here about the general bad influence of (too much) porn on society. I don't care how YOU would settle the "sex talk" with your children, since we are talking here about a problem that affects a whole society and a state that provides a net for less fortunate kids should be welcomed.

    What would be your solution? Teaching your kid at home and isolate him from the world, trap him in a golden cage? Bring him to a damn private school with "your values" if you so desire, but you Sir, are talking about the abandomnent of the public school at all, because you don't want to let your kid get in contact with "the filth of society". Geez, if that doesn't cultivate intolerance of all kinds, then I don't know.

    It doesn't matter if "the need to establish an order that you like" is something of priority to you. It is the number of people that it is affected that counts, and with the drive for sex, thats pretty much everybody. Also, you cherry picked this comment out of context to go on to rave over your weird romantic sentiment about colonisation, one of the greatest crime in history. You are romantizing racism, slave culture and countless murders of the people who lived in the countries "we conquered". Yeah, you are right, we will probably not agree on this if you are ticking that way and if these are your oh so high "ideals".

    Hm, whats wrong with creating an emotional bond with myself and my body? I have no problem with loving myself and my body, but you on the other hand seem to have some pretty deep issues of how you regard your self. I bet you are completly alienated from your own body.

    Geez, if you are a "noble man" then don't want to imagine a world full of "noble men".

    Haha, I love the phrase about my kid spoiling yours, I think I am going to write a song or draw a picture about exactly this situation; my kid annoying yours by showing him the liberties outside of his elitist household.
    What do you want from me? That I vote against schools? Haha, you are crazy man.

    Alex once called me a true liberal on this forum, but no, you are waaaay above my level of liberalism. Fuck everybody, if they have a problem? Everybody just for himself? The survival of the strongest? No safety net for the poor and the less fortunate?
    I think you are buying into the illusion that we are living in a meritocracy, that everybody is where he is because of the skills he has and that therefore there is no need for any state intervention of any kind at all. We are striving to be one for sure, but we are still waaaay off that goal mate. Thats why we need the state to provide safety nets and equal chances for everyone, because this is not a given. You seem to follow some weird neo-liberal notion found in economy that society "will regulate itself", but thats just bullshit.

    The gap from the rich to the poor grows every year, millionairs get richer and richer even within the economy crisis, because the big companies always got the time of their life in times of econmic crisis, because they can the swallow the little companies way under value. There is an ever growing concentration of power going on and its just the same in society, if you let it be. If we just have schools for the parents that can afford them, we will create an ever greater mass of people, who are undereducated and in the end, we will have an educated elite on top that will reign the mass like the aristocrats did back in the middle ages. You would destroy democracy with this thinking, or worse, you would create a democracy where the idiot mass, unable to reflect upon themselves and uneducated, would reign, heralding a new age of ignorance.

    And exactly this justifies me voting for "taking your money"; because I don't want to live in a society which would be created, if everybody would think like you.

    Yeah, lets bring back child labor mate, seems legit.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
  11. Ekhangel

    Ekhangel Fapstronaut

    569
    463
    63
    Yeah, whatever. This discussion is going to develop until the point of the very fundamental axiological issues, and at its very end we would discover that we two hold completely different views on this matter and that these are not based on any logical notions, but maybe just mental predispositions or environmental influences. So, basically - no point to argue.

    What I only must stress again is that collectivism of any sort will always generate pressures of that kind; it's a primary trigger for social conflicts and frictions, that may only be prevented by enslaving the society as a whole; the fantasies of "1984" are coming true and perhaps you don't get to see it yet, but you will recall my words very soon, I believe. The socialist propaganda acting on your naive notions of popular equality and "social justice" will hold you in your pathetic demanding attitude until the whole system collapses completely. I would go on explaining why it must be so, but this is not a political forum and therefore I will just stop here with you undoubtedly disagreeing.

    Let history validate our judgments and hope our children never meet.
     
  12. Tschoo

    Tschoo Fapstronaut

    74
    3
    8
    Well, at least we agree here. We are both a product of our different pasts and we will probably fail to reach an "objective political truth". Has never been done. Will never be done.

    I am more afraid of Aldous Huxley's vision in "Brave new world", people drowning in pleasures. Of course, collectivism the way it was done in the USSR was a bad thing, it was indoctrination, but this is not what is happening within our DEMOCRATIC society. Providing information in schools and safety nets for the poor is a very low level of collectivism that shouldn't be feared.
    I see it the other way around, proving your point of different upbringing environments; If we won't care for more social justice soon, aka more taxation of the super-rich + more education for everyone + creating an envirnomnet of tolerance and acceptance, society will someday not be able to carry the burden of egoistic capitalistic neo-liberalists anymore. A society where the majority is under the thumb of an elite will someday rise against this structural oppression, to cause change.

    If mah' kid meets yo' kid on the schoolyard mah' kid will totally beat up yo' kid with a left uppercut.
     
  13. Ekhangel

    Ekhangel Fapstronaut

    569
    463
    63
    USSR was a democracy too (as stated in its constitution), it's just that in addition to demoralizing, dumbing down, misleading, manipulating and lying to people by all possible means, as it is done nowadays, they were simply forced by fear to vote at the right people (as it is already progressing nowadays, using media-induced ostracism, police control, political correctness and "hate speech" prevention)

    Ekhangel out.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
  14. Nate007

    Nate007 Fapstronaut

    197
    4
    18
    okay so here is where i think this new curriculum for sex ed goes wrong. Up until the age of around 10 (or the beginnings of puberty) a child will ask questions about something when they are ready to talk about it. if they don't ask about it then it hasn't come on their radar yet. my fear is that this new sex ed will push all this very "mature" subject matter on kids who are only a few years out of their cribs.
     
  15. Squeaky Soul

    Squeaky Soul Fapstronaut

    806
    268
    63
    This is my opinion... I kind of think sex ED should be left up to the parents or guardians. No kid is identically mature. Different kids are going to be comfortable about asking at different ages. I think kids nowadays are being sexualized at to young of an age. A child should learn about it when ready.

    Me being homeschooled, I learned about sex when I asked my parents about it, "How are babies made?" haha. Feel free to ask more questions about my homeschool life, I am open to it.

    ~Squeaky Soul
     
  16. e5s

    e5s Fapstronaut

    324
    57
    28
    Out of curiosity, how did your parents answer? (this is relevant to my life, raising teens, aaaahhhh)

    I agree that kids are sexualized at much too young of an age, but on the other hand, it's hard to know with certainty what stage of development they're in (living in the same house doesn't mean one can read minds) and then there's the problem that if they interact with the outside world at all, there's the risk they'll absorb confusing messages from others too soon, and perhaps it's best to proactively address that. I favor open dialogue myself, but I'd be interested to hear your views.
     
  17. IGY

    IGY Guest

    Hi Nate. I do not think it is enough to wait until a child asks questions about sex until there is a dialogue at home. What you say sounds logical, i.e. "if they don't ask about it then it hasn't come on their radar yet." But, in my case, it came on my radar a couple of years before I asked about it at home. Fortunately, I had no access to porn and there was no internet then anyway. An aspect to consider is not just providing information as required, but preparing them.
     
  18. IGY

    IGY Guest

    I see what you are saying. But also consider that parents vary greatly in their ability to teach sex. Kids are not being sexualized at too young an age by parents. It is 21st century society that sexualizes kids. I think kids should learn about sex together as a preparation of what is to come. When did you ask your first sex question at home. How long was this before puberty started (a bit of fluff round your dick) and what answer did your mum give you?
     
  19. e5s

    e5s Fapstronaut

    324
    57
    28
    This reminds me of one of the valuable things about public sex-ed. As I recall, looking back, my first sex-ed lesson didn't resemble what one might think of as sex-ed at all. In fact it probably wasn't even called "sex-ed" so as not to create controversy. The message was, in a nutshell, "Your Body Belongs to You" and it was talking about different kinds of touch, and explaining that if someone touched you in a way you didn't like, you had the right to object, and you had the right to talk about it with other adults, and it gave kids general communication tools as well. There was something in there about good secrets vs bad secrets too, I think, and feelings. Somehow, without ever mentioning dicks and vaginas or how to make a baby, it provided something of a first line of defense against childhood sexual abuse. I sometimes wonder how well it worked.
     
  20. Squeaky Soul

    Squeaky Soul Fapstronaut

    806
    268
    63
    Well, my dad provided for my family, but my mother did all the raising. My dad never lifted a finger to take care of me. He was always off by himself, watching T.V., reading a book, working... I asked him when I was around 8-9 years old. I loved watching nature shows such as, "Nature" on PBS, and was always confused when the animals started humping each other. I understood that a baby would be the outcome, so I built up the courage and asked my dad why was humping important in making offspring. He replied, "Some parts come together." very uncomfortably, ahaha.

    My mom gave me the talk about 3 years later when I was 11 or 12. I was already well aware of sexual intercourse. I knew how to work a computer very well... Seeing that my father couldn't give me the answer I was looking for, I did research and found out exactly what parts came together. Haha!

    My mother specifically said something along the lines of this... "When you look at a hand, a hand wouldn't be able to serve its purpose without an arm. A foot wouldn't be able to serve it's purpose without a leg. Same with people."

    .... That brought up a lot of confusing memories for me... I got what she was trying to tell me, but the whole hand and foot thing still really throws me off. Maybe I just remember it differently.

    Peace,

    ~Squeaky Soul
     

Share This Page