Sex education in schools!

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My values being educated children. I don't actually express any "values" in the post you quoted.

So you didn’t say then that you wouldn’t trust most parents to educate their own children about homosexuality, especially conservative parents? That’s an expression of your own values with regard to a couple of things - homosexuality, and conservative parents.

How are they supposed to form these opinions without education?

What part of the Irish Constitution regarding the Family and the parents as the primary and natural educators of their own children did you miss exactly? It just so happens that you disagree with how parents choose to educate their own children, yet you proposed homeschooling earlier, which would mean the issue of children not being educated according to your values, would still exist! That doesn’t look to me like your concerns are for the education of children, but rather your concerns are more about promoting your own ideological social and political beliefs in place of an overwhelming conservative and social ideology which is supported by the children’s own parents.

As long as the conservative parent invites and respects disagreement and debate from their kids, and accepts that they need to be educate in order to do so.

What are you hoping for? Of course I don’t invite and respect disagreement and debate from a child. They’re a child! And when it comes to my own child, I don’t need to accept that they need to be educated to disagree with me, they’ve been disagreeing with me since they were in nappies. They understand the concept of consent because they’re well used to hearing the word “NO”, and it being made explicitly clear to them that they require permission to do anything, and that if someone says no, that means they do not have that persons permission to do whatever they want to do to that person.

I said specific.

I haven't expressed any idea other than educated children, and yhis proves that YOU are one pushing an ideology and trying to deflect attention from it by making accusations of others.

You have expressed the idea that you don’t trust parents to educate their children according to your standards and values. Well no shìt like, that still doesn’t mean you get to do an end run around the parents to weaponise their children against them.

Kids need to be educated. It's why they get sent to school in the first place. And they need to be educated about the world they live in and will grow up in and experience as adults. It's not something that you seem to think happens magically in the background or on their 18th birthday.

What exactly are you scared of?

I agree with the general gist of that paragraph entirely. That’s why I’m not scared of anything like you are of conservative parents whom you don’t trust to educate their own children. Fortunately for all children, the State recognises their parents rights as the primary educators of their own children, and that’s the world we live in which our children will grow up in and experience as adults.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So you didn’t say then that you wouldn’t trust most parents to educate their own children about homosexuality, especially conservative parents? That’s an expression of your own values with regard to a couple of things - homosexuality, and conservative parents.

No it isn't - what "value" is it expressing?

What part of the Irish Constitution regarding the Family and the parents as the primary and natural educators of their own children did you miss exactly? It just so happens that you disagree with how parents choose to educate their own children, yet you proposed homeschooling earlier, which would mean the issue of children not being educated according to your values, would still exist! That doesn’t look to me like your concerns are for the education of children, but rather your concerns are more about promoting your own ideological social and political beliefs in place of an overwhelming conservative and social ideology which is supported by the children’s own parents.

Doesn't answer my question: how are they supposed to learn if the parents won't teach them or won't send them to school to be taught?

What are you hoping for? Of course I don’t invite and respect disagreement and debate from a child. They’re a child! And when it comes to my own child, I don’t need to accept that they need to be educated to disagree with me, they’ve been disagreeing with me since they were in nappies. They understand the concept of consent because they’re well used to hearing the word “NO”, and it being made explicitly clear to them that they require permission to do anything, and that if someone says no, that means they do not have that persons permission to do whatever they want to do to that person.

What difference does it make whether a child or an adult presents the exact same argument?

You have expressed the idea that you don’t trust parents to educate their children according to your standards and values. Well no shìt like, that still doesn’t mean you get to do an end run around the parents to weaponise their children against them.

No, I never said MY standards. YOU said my standards.

My opinion would be that they should be taught about it. Either by state or by parents. BUT by SOMEONE.

I agree with the general gist of that paragraph entirely. That’s why I’m not scared of anything like you are of conservative parents whom you don’t trust to educate their own children. Fortunately for all children, the State recognises their parents rights as the primary educators of their own children, and that’s the world we live in which our children will grow up in and experience as adults.

The what's the problem? Either the parents teach them or send them to school to be taught.

What I'm saying is: parents can not say "I'm not going to teach them or allow someone else to teach them. They'll just have to pick it up on their own." That's neglgent. You can bring up all the constitution about primary educators you want, that just gives the parents first option. If they won't or can't teach as primary, then they are obligated by law to arrange an alternative as secondary. Someone has to ecducate them. Ignorance is not an option.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What do you mean by "objective"?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sooo... semantics. That's your objection? Somehow I think there's a bit more to it than that...

Objective

ADJECTIVE

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.Contrasted with subjective.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms:
impartial · unbiased ·


I said it’s misleading to refer to it as objective sex education, and it is. I have provided the definition of the word objective in this context for those adults who appear to be having some trouble understanding the concept.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Objective

ADJECTIVE

(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.Contrasted with subjective.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms:
impartial · unbiased ·


I said it’s misleading to refer to it as objective sex education, and it is. I have provided the definition of the word objective in this context for those adults who appear to be having some trouble understanding the concept.

Sorry, you weren't meant to take that as literal, I'll try again.

In what way do you believe it to be partial or subjective?

Also - when you have time - the thrtee other questions you omitted from my post.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No it isn't - what "value" is it expressing?

It’s expressing your values with regard to parents who do not share your values with regard to homosexuality. You regard them as conservative, which is why you don’t trust them to educate their own children according to how you want their children to be educated.

Doesn't answer my question: how are they supposed to learn if the parents won't teach them or won't send them to school to be taught?

The first person who brought up the idea of homeschooling was your good self. The issue you have is that you don’t trust parents to educate their children according to your standards, and you expect that it should be the obligation of a school to educate children according to your standards. Not only is that not the point of a school, it goes against the whole idea of why parents prefer to send their children to one school over another. It also ignores the fact that parents already have the right to withdraw their children from participating in sex education classes. So your ideas are missing their intended target by a country mile, simply because you lack the authority and the ability to educate parents according to how you would want them to educate their own children.

What difference does it make whether a child or an adult presents the exact same argument?

If an adult makes the same arguments as a child, it’s an indication of stunted development or immaturity. That’s generally why children’s arguments aren’t taken seriously, and adults who make their arguments in exactly the same way as children should be regarded similarly as though they are indeed behaving like children.

No, I never said MY standards. YOU said my standards.

My opinion would be that they should be taught about it. Either by state or by parents. BUT by SOMEONE.

Yes? I identified your standards from the fact that by your own admission you don’t trust parents to educate their own children. That of course implies that you have standards for the education of children which you don’t trust can be met by their parents. It’s entirely your right to hold that subjective belief, but when you try and implement it in educational policy, there are other factors which you have to consider - one of the greatest factors being parental rights which restrict your ability to impose your beliefs upon their children. Parents already teach their children about plenty, and there are some parents who do not want their children taught your beliefs, so that someone you refer to? That’s you.

And in order to do that, you have to have access to other people’s children to teach them about consent, without their parents consent.

The what's the problem? Either the parents teach them or send them to school to be taught.

What I'm saying is: parents can not say "I'm not going to teach them or allow someone else to teach them. They'll just have to pick it up on their own." That's neglgent. You can bring up all the constitution about primary educators you want, that just gives the parents first option. If they won't or can't teach as primary, then they are obligated by law to arrange an alternative as secondary. Someone has to ecducate them. Ignorance is not an option.

Parents already as I said teach their children plenty about the world around them. It’s the parents who won’t teach their children what you want them to learn, that you have an issue with. That’s a teaching moment where you can use yourself as an example of having respect for people who do not share your beliefs and opinions about the world in which we all live. They might pick up on your idea and incorporate it into their own values, or they may not. It’ll really depend upon how immature they are. I don’t immediately ascribe a disagreement of opinions amongst adults as an indication of stunted development, but I would never rule out the possibility either, which is why I would initially try to be tolerant of their difference of opinion before I’d outright dismiss it as childish nonsense.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s expressing your values with regard to parents who do not share your values with regard to homosexuality. You regard them as conservative, which is why you don’t trust them to educate their own children according to how you want their children to be educated.





The first person who brought up the idea of homeschooling was your good self. The issue you have is that you don’t trust parents to educate their children according to your standards, and you expect that it should be the obligation of a school to educate children according to your standards. Not only is that not the point of a school, it goes against the whole idea of why parents prefer to send their children to one school over another. It also ignores the fact that parents already have the right to withdraw their children from participating in sex education classes. So your ideas are missing their intended target by a country mile, simply because you lack the authority and the ability to educate parents according to how you would want them to educate their own children.





If an adult makes the same arguments as a child, it’s an indication of stunted development or immaturity. That’s generally why children’s arguments aren’t taken seriously, and adults who make their arguments in exactly the same way as children should be regarded similarly as though they are indeed behaving like children.





Yes? I identified your standards from the fact that by your own admission you don’t trust parents to educate their own children. That of course implies that you have standards for the education of children which you don’t trust can be met by their parents. It’s entirely your right to hold that subjective belief, but when you try and implement it in educational policy, there are other factors which you have to consider - one of the greatest factors being parental rights which restrict your ability to impose your beliefs upon their children. Parents already teach their children about plenty, and there are some parents who do not want their children taught your beliefs, so that someone you refer to? That’s you.

And in order to do that, you have to have access to other people’s children to teach them about consent, without their parents consent.






Parents already as I said teach their children plenty about the world around them. It’s the parents who won’t teach their children what you want them to learn, that you have an issue with. That’s a teaching moment where you can use yourself as an example of having respect for people who do not share your beliefs and opinions about the world in which we all live. They might pick up on your idea and incorporate it into their own values, or they may not. It’ll really depend upon how immature they are. I don’t immediately ascribe a disagreement of opinions amongst adults as an indication of stunted development, but I would never rule out the possibility either, which is why I would initially try to be tolerant of their difference of opinion before I’d outright dismiss it as childish nonsense.

I'm not going to multiqote this one because you're getting further away from my opinions by making assumptions based on words and you're not actually reading what I'm writing. I never mentioned a "value" for homosexuality, I mentioned a value for "knowledge". Specifically on the topic of homosexuality. I never "brought up" the subject of homeschooling, I mentioned it to explain where consent came into the debate. I asked about a child making an argument, you ignored this question and instead answered a question about if an adult made the same argument. Wasn't even close to the question I asked. You can't have identified any of my standards because you're still discussing things I haven't expressed an opinion on and ignoring the topics I have. I don;t know if this is deliberate or not. And finally, I'n not aruguing against parents who are unable to teach, I'm arguing against parents who REFUSE to teach or arranging teaching.

The only value I have expressed here, again, is knowledge. Not sex, not sexuality, not homosexuality, not homeschooling, not politics, not parental styles. If you need to being a sentence with "you value..." and the next word is not "knowledge" then it's a guess and most likely wrong; and I'll just edit it out of my reply, along with all the other guesses and misquotes.

To conclude: I believe a child should receive a full well-rounded sex-education relative to the world around that includes relationships (that I may or may not promote or see value in - that isn't relevant), consent awareness, safety awareness and relationship awareness both in their own and those of other people. Either from the State or the parents. But from SOMEONE.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And finally, I'n not aruguing against parents who are unable to teach, I'm arguing against parents who REFUSE to teach or arranging teaching.

Your argument is substantially more nuanced than that - you’re arguing against parents who refuse to teach their children what you want them to learn, and refuse to allow their children to be taught what you want them to learn.

The only value I have expressed here, again, is knowledge. Not sex, not sexuality, not homosexuality, not homeschooling, not politics, not parental styles. If you need to being a sentence with "you value..." and the next word is not "knowledge" then it's a guess and most likely wrong; and I'll just edit it out of my reply, along with all the other guesses and misquotes.

To conclude: I believe a child should receive a full well-rounded sex-education relative to the world around that includes relationships (that I may or may not promote or see value in - that isn't relevant), consent awareness, safety awareness and relationship awareness both in their own and those of other people. Either from the State or the parents. But from SOMEONE.

And equally in conclusion - the knowledge you possess is of no value to parents who do not share share your values and beliefs. You appear to want to compel parents to allow their children to be educated not according to how those parents see the world, but how you see the world, and that’s why I could understand why you don’t trust parents to educate their own children according to your values - because it stands to reason that if they don’t share your values, they aren’t going to want your values passed on to their children.

I’ll ask you straight out rather than assume your position then - do you imagine you care more about the welfare of other people’s children than the parents of those children themselves in terms of their education and welfare? I know I care more about the education and welfare of my child than you ever could, precisely because they’re my child and not yours, and I am preparing them for the world as I see it, but you appear to be of the opinion that I can’t be trusted to educate my own child and care for their welfare like you do, precisely because of how you imagine the world should be, according to your values, standards and beliefs.

Sounds to me like exactly what you’re trying to do is weaponise children against their own parents by attempting to promote your ideological beliefs and values in the school environment where teachers act in loco parentis - not in spite of their parents values, but in support of them, with the parents consent, as opposed to your idea that parental consent is irrelevant in educating people about consent.

Square that hypocritical peg in a round hole for me, and then we’ll talk. Until then, well, good luck with that.

Hotblack Desiato

Conservative catholic paranoia at its finest.

Also, lol at providing a dictionary definition when I said you were arguing over semantics...

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Conservative catholic paranoia at its finest.

Also, lol at providing a dictionary definition when I said you were arguing over semantics...

How is it any kind of paranoia on my account when it’s PCB came out with this particularly subjective belief -

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I don't think I'd trust a lot parents to teach about homosexuality to be honest. Especially not the conservative ones.

No rational basis for that statement whatsoever, much like your own unfounded belief about paranoia as though it’s either a peculiarly Catholic or conservative phenomenon.

The reason I provided a dictionary definition of the word objective is because I wanted to provide the meaning of the word in an objective fashion, something that neither yourself, PCB nor the politicians who proposed the title of their Bill appear to be familiar with, and yet you appear to be suggesting you’re in a better position to educate my child than I am?

Of course you are :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

You can still opt out same as now. That's why I'm saying it's worthless paranoia to say that parents' rights are going to be infringed. Family Solidarity and co. have been beating this drum since the early 80s, if not before.

It's probably the kids whose parents opt them out of any and all sex education who need it the most...

Studies in the US show that abstinence-only based sex "education" approaches simply do not work and lead to higher rates of pregnancy and STIs.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You can still opt out same as now. That's why I'm saying it's worthless paranoia to say that parents' rights are going to be infringed. Family Solidarity and co. have been beating this drum since the early 80s, if not before.

It's probably the kids whose parents opt them out of any and all sex education who need it the most...

That’s why people who argue that children should be taught values which are inconsistent or incompatible with their parents values, regardless of whether or not their parents consent, are generally on a hiding to nowhere. It’s true that it would be worthless paranoia if I believed that the politicians behind the proposed bill will ever have the political influence to impose their ideology on people who don’t happen to share their ideology. That’s precisely why I don’t worry about it.

Parents who opt their children out of sex education are acting in what they believe are in the best interests of their children, primarily because they don’t want their children exposed to an ideology which they fundamentally disagree with. Wouldn’t you want the same for your own children? Then you can understand why other parents would not want their children exposed to ideas they disagree with.

Studies in the US show that abstinence-only based sex "education" approaches simply do not work and lead to higher rates of pregnancy and STIs.

Since the beginning of human evolution, children have defied their parents, and I didn’t need any study to understand why either. Has there ever been any studies done on the numbers and outcomes of parents who raise their children according to what they read in studies as opposed to what those parents themselves feel is best for their children based upon their experiences and their beliefs and values?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Has there ever been any studies done on the numbers and outcomes of parents who raise their children according to what they read in studies as opposed to what those parents themselves feel is best for their children based upon their experiences and their beliefs and values?

In an attempt to answer my own question, I did google, and came across this rather interesting phenomenon -

Parents in the U.S. are increasingly raising children outside traditional gender norms — allowing boys and girls to play with the same toys and wear the same clothes — though experts say this is happening mostly in progressive, well-to-do enclaves. But what makes this “gender-open” style of parenting stand out, and even controversial in some circles, is that the parents do not reveal the sex of their children to anyone. Even the children, who are aware of their own body parts and how they may differ from others, are not taught to associate those body parts with being a boy or girl. If no one knows a child’s sex, these parents theorize, the child can’t be pigeonholed into gender stereotypes.

'Boy or girl?' Parents raising 'theybies' let kids decide


As I observed at the beginning of the thread -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Conservative or liberal really doesn’t make any difference in my experience, children are generally fairly handy at figuring out their shìt in their own time in their own way at their own pace.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

And finally, I'n not aruguing against parents who are unable to teach, I'm arguing against parents who REFUSE to teach or arranging teaching.

Your argument is substantially more nuanced than that - you’re arguing against parents who refuse to teach their children what you want them to learn, and refuse to allow their children to be taught what you want them to learn.

The only value I have expressed here, again, is knowledge. Not sex, not sexuality, not homosexuality, not homeschooling, not politics, not parental styles. If you need to being a sentence with "you value..." and the next word is not "knowledge" then it's a guess and most likely wrong; and I'll just edit it out of my reply, along with all the other guesses and misquotes.

To conclude: I believe a child should receive a full well-rounded sex-education relative to the world around that includes relationships (that I may or may not promote or see value in - that isn't relevant), consent awareness, safety awareness and relationship awareness both in their own and those of other people. Either from the State or the parents. But from SOMEONE.

And equally in conclusion - the knowledge you possess is of no value to parents who do not share share your values and beliefs. You appear to want to compel parents to allow their children to be educated not according to how those parents see the world, but how you see the world, and that’s why I could understand why you don’t trust parents to educate their own children according to your values - because it stands to reason that if they don’t share your values, they aren’t going to want your values passed on to their children.

I’ll ask you straight out rather than assume your position then - do you imagine you care more about the welfare of other people’s children than the parents of those children themselves in terms of their education and welfare? I know I care more about the education and welfare of my child than you ever could, precisely because they’re my child and not yours, and I am preparing them for the world as I see it, but you appear to be of the opinion that I can’t be trusted to educate my own child and care for their welfare like you do, precisely because of how you imagine the world should be, according to your values, standards and beliefs.

Sounds to me like exactly what you’re trying to do is weaponise children against their own parents by attempting to promote your ideological beliefs and values in the school environment where teachers act in loco parentis - not in spite of their parents values, but in support of them, with the parents consent, as opposed to your idea that parental consent is irrelevant in educating people about consent.

Square that hypocritical peg in a round hole for me, and then we’ll talk. Until then, well, good luck with that.

My opinion is very clearly stated in the last paragraph of the post you replied. You ignored it.

The fact that you *then* proceeded to tell ME what MY opinion was genuinely made me laugh!!

As such there's no point in debating further. I mean - you don't need me here more if you're just going to make up your own counter-arguments before you debate them, do you?!

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My opinion is very clearly stated in the last paragraph of the post you replied. You ignored it.

The fact that you *then* proceeded to tell ME what MY opinion was genuinely made me laugh!!

As such there's no point in debating further. I mean - you don't need me here more if you're just going to make up your own counter-arguments before you debate them, do you?!

Oh, is that what you thought we were doing?

Oh dear.

If it helps your understanding however -

Debate and discussion are two terms that are often used interchangeably since many people do not realize that there is a difference between the two. This misconception stems from the loose interpretations of debate, i.e., debates are often defined as discussions in which different opinions are expressed. However, debate and discussion are not the same; there are many differences between debates and discussions. The main difference between debate and discussion is the competitiveness of debates. A discussion is an exchange of opinions and ideas whereas debate is a form of formal contest of argumentation between two people or groups.

Difference Between Debate and Discussion

In order for it to be regarded as a debate, I would have to consider that you have a legitimate position worth arguing. As it happens, I don’t consider you actually do have a legitimate position worth arguing.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s precisely why I don’t worry about it.

Yet here you are, making up nonsense about the rights of parents supposedly being infringed.

Parents who opt their children out of sex education are acting in what they believe are in the best interests of their children

No doubt they believe they are, as do anti-vaxxers, but in both cases it's objectively proven that they are not acting in the best interests of their children.

sportsfan90

Is it specifically outlined in any syllabus that sex-ed must be taught in schools? Because I can tell you that I received none whatsoever! The only thing that was told us about sex was in our religion class where the teacher had a sign on top of the room saying "Save sex for marriage". And this wasn't decades ago that I'm talking about as I'm now only 28 and finished school in 2009.

Granted getting no sex-ed at all is certainly better than getting it off a nun telling you that you'll burn in hell for using a condom or that promiscuity can cause cancer but looking back now the lack of sex-ed we got was disgracefully inadequate.

freshpopcorn

sportsfan90 wrote: »

Is it specifically outlined in any syllabus that sex-ed must be taught in schools? Because I can tell you that I received none whatsoever! The only thing that was told us about sex was in our religion class where the teacher had a sign on top of the room saying "Save sex for marriage". And this wasn't decades ago that I'm talking about as I'm now only 28 and finished school in 2009.

Granted getting no sex-ed at all is certainly better than getting it off a nun telling you that you'll burn in hell for using a condom or that promiscuity can cause cancer but looking back now the lack of sex-ed we got was disgracefully inadequate.

I'm about your age and most people I know did something at the end of 6th class. I think sometimes parents had to consent to it.
I remember when I did mine. Not everybody went it was after school.
Some felt they knew it already, there was a match on and some talked about it at home.(Some parents may have objected to it as well).

There was a chapter in the SPHE book I secondary but we did very little SPHE or religion.
We mainly did homework or read those youth magazines.

Mrs OBumble

sportsfan90 wrote: »

... or that promiscuity can cause cancer but looking back now the lack of sex-ed we got was disgracefully inadequate.

I got bad news for ya: promiscuity is linked with various negative health outcomes, yes, including cancer.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/longevity/can-promiscuity-threaten-longevity.aspx

Hotblack Desiato

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I got bad news for ya: promiscuity is linked with various negative health outcomes, yes, including cancer.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/longevity/can-promiscuity-threaten-longevity.aspx

All the more reason why proper sex ed is important. Rubber up!

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yet here you are, making up nonsense about the rights of parents supposedly being infringed.

It’s right there in the introduction to the Act -


An Act to guarantee the right of students to receive
factual and objective relationships and sexuality education without regard to the characteristic spirit of the school.

What that implies is that parents will no longer maintain the right they currently have to withdraw their children from sex and relationships education because it would be an infringement of their children’s right to receive what in those politicians opinions is a factual and objective relationships and sexuality education.

That’s an end run around the children’s parents and would be an infringement of a right they currently have. I don’t expect they will get very far with it, that’s why I’m not too concerned about it.

No doubt they believe they are, as do anti-vaxxers, but in both cases it's objectively proven that they are not acting in the best interests of their children.

I don’t know do you actually understand what the principle of acting in the best interests of the child means, it’s not an objective standard for starters. Secondly, Irish law does not make vaccination mandatory - parents still maintain the right to advocate on behalf of their children in medical matters until the child reaches the age of 16, and to advocate for their children in matters of how their children are to be educated until the child reaches the age of 18.

The best interests of the child would be determined by a Court of Law on a case by case basis based upon a number of factors as opposed to one single factor like a perceived right to what a small number of politicians are calling an objective sexuality and relationships education.

At least we’re agreed that parents generally will act in the best interests of their children, and whether or not we agree or disagree with their decisions they make for their children is another matter entirely. I have no doubt you wouldn’t want anyone telling you how to raise your own child. You should surely be able to understand where other parents who do not share your values are coming from then. They’re coming from the same place you are, they just don’t share your perspective on how they should raise their own children who are not your children.

pjohnson

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yet here you are, making up nonsense about the rights of parents supposedly being infringed.



No doubt they believe they are, as do anti-vaxxers, but in both cases it's objectively proven that they are not acting in the best interests of their children.

Tbf he was publishing the same inane ramblings in the antivaxx thread so he is consistent.

Mrs OBumble

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

All the more reason why proper sex ed is important. Rubber up!

People who have received wide-ranging sex education know about the risks that intercourse involves, and that condoms only partly reduce them: Condoms have a surprisingly high failure rate in every-day use, and do nothing to protect from the emotional issues associated with casual sex.

One eyed Jack

pjohnson wrote: »

Tbf he was publishing the same inane ramblings in the antivaxx thread so he is consistent.

Still smarting over the fact you can’t control other people’s decisions for their own children? :pac:

Sardonicat

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

All the more reason why proper sex ed is important. Rubber up!

People who have received wide-ranging sex education know about the risks that intercourse involves, and that condoms only partly reduce them: Condoms have a surprisingly high failure rate in every-day use, and do nothing to protect from the emotional issues associated with casual sex.

Again, all the more reason to have comprehensive sex education that encompasses more than the technicalities of penetrative, vaginal sex. The more informed people are before they become sexually active, the more informed choices they can make for themselves when the time comes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

All the more reason why proper sex ed is important. Rubber up!

People who have received wide-ranging sex education know about the risks that intercourse involves, and that condoms only partly reduce them: Condoms have a surprisingly high failure rate in every-day use, and do nothing to protect from the emotional issues associated with casual sex.

Emphasises the point really.

One eyed Jack

sportsfan90 wrote: »

Is it specifically outlined in any syllabus that sex-ed must be taught in schools? Because I can tell you that I received none whatsoever! The only thing that was told us about sex was in our religion class where the teacher had a sign on top of the room saying "Save sex for marriage". And this wasn't decades ago that I'm talking about as I'm now only 28 and finished school in 2009.

Granted getting no sex-ed at all is certainly better than getting it off a nun telling you that you'll burn in hell for using a condom or that promiscuity can cause cancer but looking back now the lack of sex-ed we got was disgracefully inadequate.

Not in the syllabus as such, but RSE in some form is mandatory since about the mid-90’s. Your experience isn’t at all unusual btw and I still see it in many schools today where teachers are generally unwilling to teach children the curriculum. Each school currently has the right to develop their own policies with regard to RSE and there are a number of different opinions involved, especially the opinions of the children’s parents.


Here’s an interesting research paper on the subject that was published in November 2018, which identifies your experience as one of the main challenges -


The need for quality Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) programmes in schools is highlighted again and again in work with young people. However, as has been indicated throughout this paper, there are considerable challenges in the implementation of existing programmes in Ireland and elsewhere; the main challenge being teacher confidence and competence. While current curriculum programmes in Ireland stand up well to scrutiny in relation to both content and methodologies, they are in need of updating. On the plus side, a considerable degree of expertise and learning has been built up over the past 25 years of implementation and this is something that can be built upon.


Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) in Primary and Post-Primary Irish Schools

pjohnson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Still smarting over the fact you can’t control other people’s decisions for their own children? :pac:

Just feel pity really. Some people are really too stupid to be allowed breed. Dont care what those people do to their own unfortunate children. Its when those kids interact with children who have actually been cared for and raised the problems start.

One eyed Jack

pjohnson wrote: »

Just feel pity really. Some people are really too stupid to be allowed breed.

Fortunately for anyone who isn’t you, you have no control other people’s decisions in that regard either.

You’re not actually that important that anyone who isn’t you actually cares for your pity either.

pjohnson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fortunately for anyone who isn’t you, you have no control other people’s decisions in that regard either.

You’re not actually that important that anyone who isn’t you actually cares for your pity either.

Et toi. Not that that stops your meandering contrarion answers to any topic.

One eyed Jack

pjohnson wrote: »

Et toi. Not that that stops your meandering contrarion answers to any topic.

Eh? At no point did I ever suggest that I pitied anyone who disagreed with me, nor do I pity anyone or their children who choose to raise their own children differently to how I choose to raise my children. I as an adult am capable of acknowledging the fact that other adults have the right to make decisions for their own children rather than expecting that the State should step in to enforce my beliefs and values upon other parents. You don’t feel the same way, I think we’ve established that. The difference between us is that you still imagine I should care for your opinion in relation to how I choose to raise my own child. Why would I? You’re a complete stranger on the Internet who will never have any input into how my child is raised.

You have yet to accept that fact, as well as learning to accept the fact that parental rights are not so easily ridden roughshod over in order for people like you to impose your beliefs and values upon other people’s children which aren’t your own. It didn’t work out so well in the past when children were removed from the family home and from their parents, or their parents were compelled to act in violation of their own conscience, or when children were exposed to all sorts of ill treatment without their parents consent.

You just don’t have the authority to impose your ideological beliefs, values and opinions upon other people, whereas I have never expressed any such wish and would never support any ideology which undermined a parents right to raise their own children according to their beliefs, values and world view.