Sex education in schools!

Midster

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What the hell is this nonsense that believes porn is a reality? And that all women get intimidated. Are you 14 or something?

I am simply stating a fact.... not all porn is fake.

Porn has to cater to all different tastes.

Are you saying they are all fake?

How about the amateur ones?

Your being very small minded about this.

And by the way I never said all women get intimidated, I actually said that if someone hasn’t done it before, they might be nervous.

And not every woman in every porn vid has a fake reaction to the biggest c**k they ever seen in there life being pushed into them for half an hour. Lol

FunLover18

Midster wrote: »

I am simply stating a fact.... not all porn is fake.

Porn has to cater to all different tastes.

Are you saying they are all fake?

How about the amateur ones?

Your being very small minded about this.

And by the way I never said all women get intimidated, I actually said that if someone hasn’t done it before, they might be nervous.

And not every woman in every porn vid has a fake reaction to the biggest c**k they ever seen in there life being pushed into them for half an hour. Lol

You really shouldn't need to watch porn to know that having a massive f*cking cock shoved into you for half an hour is going to cause some sort of reaction.

Midster

FunLover18 wrote: »

You really shouldn't need to watch porn to know that having a massive f*cking cock shoved into you for half an hour is going to cause some sort of reaction.

Precisely!!!

And I doubt very much that in that situation the majority of women would be able to give a fake reaction to the camera, even if they wanted to.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s essentially the education system we have already. Ultimately it’s parents and guardians of children who will make decisions as to how their children are to be educated according to their values and world view in schools which support their values and beliefs with regard to relationships and sexuality.

I’ve always been a firm advocate of parental rights and that’s why even though I may disagree with how other people may choose to educate their children, the relationship between parents or guardians and their children is a fundamental relationship in society which should be protected by the State, because as the State rightly recognises - the family is the primary educator of children -

EDUCATION

ARTICLE 42

1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

You did notice 3.1.2, didn't you?


2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You did notice 3.1.2, didn't you?

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

Seeing as I posted it, yes.

Was there a point to your question?

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seeing as I posted it, yes.

Was there a point to your question?

Oh, do I really need to spell it out?



The provision of basic RSE education for all students is literally the provision of a minimum standard of education in moral and social matters, as enabled by that particular clause.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s essentially the education system we have already. Ultimately it’s parents and guardians of children who will make decisions as to how their children are to be educated according to their values and world view in schools which support their values and beliefs with regard to relationships and sexuality.

I’ve always been a firm advocate of parental rights and that’s why even though I may disagree with how other people may choose to educate their children, the relationship between parents or guardians and their children is a fundamental relationship in society which should be protected by the State, because as the State rightly recognises - the family is the primary educator of children -

EDUCATION

ARTICLE 42

1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

You quoted that some time ago on the thread and I countered it as I counter it now:

Parents do NOT have a say in the curriculum. They have a say who educates them - school or at home - but they ultimately have to make sure that the education takes place one way or the other.
The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social


All for parental rights, but not when they put the child's well-being at risk.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Oh, do I really need to spell it out?

The provision of basic RSE education for all students is literally the provision of a minimum standard of education in moral and social matters, as enabled by that particular clause.

You’re going to have to spell out what you’re getting at a lot clearer than that Andrew. So far I’m in agreement with what you’re saying, but you pointed it out as though it contradicted itself?

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You quoted that some time ago on the thread and I countered it as I counter it now:

Parents do NOT have a say in the curriculum. They have a say who educates them - school or at home - but they ultimately have to make sure that the education takes place one way or the other.
The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social


All for parental rights, but not when they put the child's well-being at risk.

Feel free to counter it as much as you like, but the draft report from the NCCA looking for input from parents in the first place, and then publishing the views of parents in the draft report, says you’re wrong. There were a number of submissions from parents themselves, and from various organisations representing parents views which had input into the drafting of the national curriculum.

You appear to be trying to make the same point as Andrew in repeating what’s written in Article 42. I’m familiar with the article, I’m just not getting yours or Andrew’s point.

It’s TUSLA are the State body responsible for ensuring that children are receiving a minimum standard of education according to criteria which aren’t strictly defined, but are rather a judgement call in each particular case.

Is that the point yourself and Andrew are trying to make? That children’s education must meet your standards? That can’t be the point you’re making, surely.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feel free to counter it as much as you like, but the draft report from the NCCA looking for input from parents in the first place, and then publishing the views of parents in the draft report, says you’re wrong. There were a number of submissions from parents themselves, and from various organisations representing parents views which had input into the drafting of the national curriculum.

You appear to be trying to make the same point as Andrew in repeating what’s written in Article 42. I’m familiar with the article, I’m just not getting yours or Andrew’s point.

It’s TUSLA are the State body responsible for ensuring that children are receiving a minimum standard of education according to criteria which aren’t strictly defined, but are rather a judgement call in each particular case.

Is that the point yourself and Andrew are trying to make? That children’s education must meet your standards? That can’t be the point you’re making, surely.

You don't seem to know the difference between giving input and actually making decisions.

You said:
it’s parents and guardians of children who will make decisions as to how their children are to be educated according to their values

And then
There were a number of submissions from parents themselves, and from various organisations representing parents views which had input into the drafting of the national curriculum.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You don't seem to know the difference between giving input and actually making decisions.

You said:
it’s parents and guardians of children who will make decisions as to how their children are to be educated according to their values

And then
There were a number of submissions from parents themselves, and from various organisations representing parents views which had input into the drafting of the national curriculum.

I believe what you’re attempting to do is commonly referred to as ‘clutching at straws’, ultimately you’re not making a point of any significance.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I believe what you’re attempting to do is commonly referred to as ‘clutching at straws’, ultimately you’re not making a point of any significance.

This depends: is your stance that parents decide what is on the education syallabus?

If your answer is no, then I misunderstood your reasoning for quoting artilce 42 - apologies - but can you clarify why you did quote said article?

If your answer us yes, then the my point is very direct and stands: parents do not decide; and you're wasting my time.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This depends: is your stance that parents decide what is on the education syallabus?

If your answer is no, then I misunderstood your reasoning for quoting artilce 42 - apologies - but can you clarify why you did quote said article?

If your answer us yes, then the my point is very direct and stands: parents do not decide; and you're wasting my time.

Immediately I thought of this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYOZ3IzRaf4

I’d hate to think this post was a complete waste of your time, so I’ll leave you with some bedtime reading from last month’s debate in the Dail on this issue -


Report on Relationships and Sexuality Education: Motion


Sleep tight

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Immediately I thought of this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYOZ3IzRaf4

I’d hate to think this post was a complete waste of your time, so I’ll leave you with some bedtime reading from last month’s debate in the Dail on this issue -


Report on Relationships and Sexuality Education: Motion


Sleep tight

You post documentation with no introduction.or statement of relevance. Yay.

You give no clear answer, to questions, and instead opt for a sarcastic attempt to claim the moral high ground. Is this debate where you come from?

Having highlighted the flaws in your argument and said observations have gone uncontested, we're done here. I dont get dragged into insult matches, and there's nowhere else to go..

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You post documentation with no introduction.or statement of relevance. Yay.

The relevance was perfectly clear- it gives an insight into the amount of stakeholders involved in developing a new relationships and sex education policy. I figured it might help your understanding.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You give no clear answer, to questions, and instead opt for a sarcastic attempt to claim the moral high ground. Is this debate where you come from?

You cobble together two statements from two different contexts and then expect to be taken seriously when you try to use that as some sort of ‘gotcha’ nonsense? That’s called arguing in bad faith, not something that would be entertained in any serious debate or discussion. I didn’t answer your question because it was going nowhere and added nothing to the discussion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Having highlighted the flaws in your argument and said observations have gone uncontested, we're done here. I dont get dragged into insult matches, and there's nowhere else to go..

‘Having invented flaws’ is a more accurate assessment of your efforts, which is why your efforts went uncontested, and why your response was just about worthy of ridicule. At least we can agree - there’s nowhere else you can go when you’re scratching at the bottom of the barrel for anything you can use to argue in bad faith. I have no problem discussing the issues involved if you’re capable of doing so without being condescending and dishonest like all you want is to engage in some sort of point scoring pissing contest.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re going to have to spell out what you’re getting at a lot clearer than that Andrew. So far I’m in agreement with what you’re saying, but you pointed it out as though it contradicted itself?

I don't think I can make it any clearer tbh.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't think I can make it any clearer tbh.

I got that much Andrew. It means exactly what you’re saying it means. That minimum standard of education is decided on a case by case basis, it’s not defined in legislation. It’s related more to children who are home schooled as opposed to the standard of education or the type of education children receive in formal education.

I did try and find some guidelines as to what are the criteria under which the “minimum standard of education” could be characterised, but the document dates from 2003 so I’m not sure it’s much of a help to you tbh, but for what it’s worth -

Guidelines on the Assessment of Education in Places Other Than Recognised Schools


There are also schools in Ireland which come under the heading of a school not recognised by the State which means they don’t teach the national curriculum and therefore don’t qualify to receive any funding from the State, but there are only a small number of schools like that in the country that I’m aware of.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s only partially true -


Boards of Management

The board of management manages the school on behalf of the patron and is accountable to the patron and the Minister. The Board must uphold the characteristic spirit (ethos) of the school and is accountable to the patron for so doing. The principal is responsible for the day-to-day management of the school, including providing guidance and direction to the teachers and other staff of the school and is accountable for that management.


https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Boards-of-Management/

None of that addresses what I said. Has the Minister for Education ever removed a BOM?
Parents in Castleknock ET found out the hard way that ET could do nothing when the BOM went off on a religious solo run, either.

Paul Lee

I'm teaching my kids about sex in a very gradual way.

I don't want some ideologically driven material spoonfed into my precious childrens minds.

I've gone to highly priced counsellors in my time for my own requirements and I have to say that the help that I've been able to obtain mostly through podcasts, youtube and various websites is vastly superior to what they've been able to do for me.

When it comes to sex education and consent for my kids, no offence but I'll be doing a monumentally better job than any teacher or government organisation. That's because I've done my homework, but also more importantly I have a wonderful relationship with my kids.

Also again, no offence, anyone who doesn't have kids has little reason to know what they're talking about. That doesn't mean they don't know what's best for themselves, but for my kids (and others' kids) they pretty much haven't the foggiest idea. That's part of the reason why Varadkar and Zappone have absolutely no business having sway over how children are taught.

Having Zappone as Minister for Children is an insult to parents.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

None of that addresses what I said. Has the Minister for Education ever removed a BOM?
Parents in Castleknock ET found out the hard way that ET could do nothing when the BOM went off on a religious solo run, either.

It does? This was the part of your post I was commenting on -

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

BOMs have, in reality, very little or no accountability.

With religious ethos schools it's worse, as the PP or bishop can veto any decision they make.

That’s why I said it was only partially true that they have very little or no accountability, the reality is that they are accountable not just to the trustees, but also to the Minister for Education (or the Department of Education on the Ministers behalf), and as a legal entity in their own right, they’re also accountable to the State.

The statement released by ET following what happened in Castleknock was bollocks, frankly. Of course they have a say in what does or doesn’t go on in schools under their patronage, and they too had the power to veto the decision by the Board of Management to invite a Catholic agency to deliver the programme on relationships and sex education in the school.

What happened in Castleknock was a good example of instead of your earlier suggestion that if parents didn’t agree with the type of education provided they could withdraw their children from the class - the parents in that case decided they didn’t have to accept being told they could withdraw their children from the class if they didn’t like it.

FunLover18

Paul Lee wrote: »

I'm teaching my kids about sex in a very gradual way.

I don't want some ideologically driven material spoonfed into my precious childrens minds.

I've gone to highly priced counsellors in my time for my own requirements and I have to say that the help that I've been able to obtain mostly through podcasts, youtube and various websites is vastly superior to what they've been able to do for me.

When it comes to sex education and consent for my kids, no offence but I'll be doing a monumentally better job than any teacher or government organisation. That's because I've done my homework, but also more importantly I have a wonderful relationship with my kids.

Also again, no offence, anyone who doesn't have kids has little reason to know what they're talking about. That doesn't mean they don't know what's best for themselves, but for my kids (and others' kids) they pretty much haven't the foggiest idea. That's part of the reason why Varadkar and Zappone have absolutely no business having sway over how children are taught.

Having Zappone as Minister for Children is an insult to parents.

Are you against any form of sex ed in schools then?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Paul Lee wrote: »

I'm teaching my kids about sex in a very gradual way.

I don't want some ideologically driven material spoonfed into my precious childrens minds.

I've gone to highly priced counsellors in my time for my own requirements and I have to say that the help that I've been able to obtain mostly through podcasts, youtube and various websites is vastly superior to what they've been able to do for me.

When it comes to sex education and consent for my kids, no offence but I'll be doing a monumentally better job than any teacher or government organisation. That's because I've done my homework, but also more importantly I have a wonderful relationship with my kids.

Also again, no offence, anyone who doesn't have kids has little reason to know what they're talking about. That doesn't mean they don't know what's best for themselves, but for my kids (and others' kids) they pretty much haven't the foggiest idea. That's part of the reason why Varadkar and Zappone have absolutely no business having sway over how children are taught.

Having Zappone as Minister for Children is an insult to parents.

Which is fine - as long as you're doing it in a way that prepares them for sexual relationships.

The issue I have is not that kids should have a proper sex education at school, it's that kids should get a proper sex education, full stop; and you're fulfilling this.

Paul Lee

FunLover18 wrote: »

Are you against any form of sex ed in schools then?

No, I'm not against it. I'm not against my kids having sex education in school but this should only be done in consultation (at the very least) with parents.

My kids have told me some things they were told that I found somewhat disturbing- Mainly because I was not informed that they were going to be told these things. To be honest I wasn't at all aware that basic info around sex education had been introduced in primary.

I'm happy for kids to know what's "not appropriate touching" for example, but I demand to know that they're going to be taught about this and also how it's going to be done.

Everything has a political/ ideological tint to it nowadays and I can see there's an agenda behind the sudden incredible interest in sex education, just like feminism, climate change, and all the rest of the predictable long list of things that have been there since the dawn of man but are now trendy to give a massive sh*t about.

One of the most important things to teach our children is to not trust the government and not to fall into the trap of dependence. I have discussions with my young kids about this. Obviously I do this in a smart way so as not to cause them stress. We even joke about it. But kids need to know this.

I have to try and get them to accept that school though it's run by the government, it's not all bad- Most teachers and management are doing a good job despite all the BS needless paperwork and regulations being dumped on top of them. But my kids are aware that some of the stuff they see and hear isn't, let's say, "optimal"

Paul Lee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which is fine - as long as you're doing it in a way that prepares them for sexual relationships.

The issue I have is not that kids should have a proper sex education at school, it's that kids should get a proper sex education, full stop; and you're fulfilling this.

Thanks for your acknowledgment. I know that not every parent is good on educating their kids. The only problem is, I don't believe the State provides a much better option than no formal education (bad though that is). The State always has an agenda of creating dependence on itself. That's just reality.

Having said that, I have no interest in preventing anyone else from educating their kids whatever way they see fit.

Goodshape

What is anyone afraid will happen if their children learn about sex in classroom setting?

Why would you assume you're more capable than a professional educator to teach your children this subject, but not other subjects?

One eyed Jack

Goodshape wrote: »

What is anyone afraid will happen if their children learn about sex in classroom setting?

Why would you assume you're more capable than a professional educator to teach your children this subject, but not other subjects?

Can’t speak for anyone else but I don’t think I’m that unusual in preferring that my child wasn’t exposed to or encouraged to indulge ideas which I find fundamentally offensive to my values and beliefs. It’s no different to anyone who is campaigning for reform because of their belief that children are growing up to be adults today who are suffering because of the lack of adequate sex education in schools. The facts simply don’t bear out their imagined reality.

Again I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t need to measure myself as a parent against a person whose profession is education. I’ve never met a professional educator yet who wasn’t an ideologue of one form or another in terms of how they believed children should be educated, or the knowledge that children should be equipped with in order to become a functioning, contributing member of society as adults.

I can say that because my own mother was both a parent and an educator was her profession, and I never understood as a child why my parents drove me as hard as they did. I understood on some level of course that they wanted to equip me with the skills I would need to succeed in life, but when I look back on it now, those skills did not include sex, or talking about sex, or learning about sex, or anything at all sexual whatsoever. I don’t think I was any the worse for it - my parents were equipping me with the things that were of value to them, that they wanted me to value and take pride in.

I’m the same with my own child - I don’t claim to know better than a professional educator because I’m not trying to compete with a professional educator- we fulfil two very different roles in society, and the State already recognises me as the child’s primary educator, not the person who is paid by the State to act in loco parentis because I made the choice to enrol him in formal education in the first place. I wanted him to be able to design software and code like nobody’s business, I wanted all the children in the school to be of that standard. That was me being an ideologue! He’s not the next Alan Turing or Linus Torvalds of course, but what he is, is so much more than I could ever have hoped for. Precisely because I haven’t focused so much on subjects like teaching him about sex, we’ve spent time learning about things which I consider will be of far greater use to him in his life and his interactions with other people.

What I’m saying is that while sex is a major part of life for some people, for other people it simply isn’t, they have far more important things going on. That’s why I do understand for some people sex is the be-all and end-all for them, and they think everyone should think the same way they do, but surely if you’ve ever interacted with other people it shouldn’t take you that long to discover that other people have interests of their own, values of their own, and beliefs of their own that are important to them as yours are to you. When it comes to their own children, parents and guardians (who may not be the biological parents of their children), are inclined to be very protective of their children and want to pass their values on to their children, and they’re also inclined to find people who try to undermine their values as untrustworthy and unfit to be in a position of authority over children, and in particular in terms of children’s education.

KWAG2019

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

None of that addresses what I said. Has the Minister for Education ever removed a BOM?
Parents in Castleknock ET found out the hard way that ET could do nothing when the BOM went off on a religious solo run, either.

I've just dropped into the thread but on these points: yes. https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/school-board-sacked-for-enrolling-extra-class-without-approval-222490.html I hope the link works, I haven't done them since forever. My memory isn't great but there have been others.

I have to disagree with you on number two I'm afraid. I read the account on atheist.ie as I wasn't too familiar with the story. The attitude of the BOM toward Accord changed when ET Patron issued a statement saying Accord was not appropriate. In the political dance that exists between BOMs and Patrons that was the signal that the game was over. Or else. I believe that an earlier statement from ET that it was up to BOM was an error and that when push came to shove ET had to step up to the plate to defend its own characteristic spirit/ethos.

KWAG2019

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Can’t speak for anyone else ...... in terms of children’s education.

This is a very long post but I wanted to reply briefly. You say what every parent I have ever known says; the vast majority are more than happy when they realise that what children are learning is useful and appropriate. Those who are not usually home school. What most parents realise is that their child while unique has the same developmental needs as others their age and those needs are adequately met with others. What very few parents need to learn as their child grows up is that a child is not their property and not programmable. That learning can be painful.

Hotblack Desiato

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I believe that an earlier statement from ET that it was up to BOM was an error and that when push came to shove ET had to step up to the plate to defend its own characteristic spirit/ethos.

ET had been ignoring parents' complaints for several years at that point and just referring them back to BOM.
Once their protests got traction on RTE, papers etc then their attitude changed, funny that.

Hotblack Desiato

Paul Lee wrote: »

I don't want some ideologically driven material spoonfed into my precious childrens minds.

96% of primary schools in this country are religious ethos, spoonfeeding ideology to kids is the reason they exist.