Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Creaca]

Censorship is proper when it comes to children. There's an opposite side here in the news where 3 schoolboys had oral sex with each each other after finding out what it was.

How is that a bad thing exactly

Explain to me without using emotional appeals and also keep in mind that it's not uncommon for kids to sexually experiment even before hitting puberty

Did I mention they did it in class? Well, it counts as public schoolkid sex then. I'm sure you'd agree that child pornography is a bad thing. Apparently, nobody taught them that it's not good to have oral sex in public. The problem was that the parents of one of the kids left some homosexual porn around the house, and the kid thought it was a normal thing.

I also know another kid who gave oral sex to a girl in elementary school. Both of them didn't know that there was anything wrong with it, but now both of them are horribly embarrassed about it and wish it never happened.

Sex ed is an iffy thing. If you give it to people too young, they either get curious or grossed out and the message doesn't get across amid the laughing and drooling. Curiosity is fine, as long as it doesn't lead into something you'll regret later. You give it too old, then it's too late.

Kids love imitating everything. Just keep sex and violence away from them, and give it to them when they're old enough to be rebellious.

That, I take issue with, as I  believe homosexuality to be a perfectly natural thing. The rest I'm fine about, but at the same time the parents need to be more careful.

Lol, worded that wrong. I didn't mean homosexualism was abnormal. I meant that doing it in class in front of people is.

I'm having a hard time believing that these three kids just got out of their desks in the middle of class, then proceeded to have oral sex. Even if they where in kindergarten they would certainly be aware that public nudity and, hell, disrupting class might get them in trouble. Exactly how old where these kids? Sounds like they where being more rebellious than anything else.

[Cthulhu]

Are you implying that slavery isn't a black and white issue?

Pun intended?

Also, your hotlinks aren't working.  To illustrate: 

The pun was not intended, although I should've seen it ahead of time.  Anyway, the pics were images of Hank Hill, because "A sex pervert" is something Hank Hill said that's kind of a catch phrase or somesuch.

No one else noticed that?  jeez.

[Muz]

[quotepyramid]

I'm having a hard time believing that these three kids just got out of their desks in the middle of class, then proceeded to have oral sex. Even if they where in kindergarten they would certainly be aware that public nudity and, hell, disrupting class might get them in trouble. Exactly how old where these kids? Sounds like they where being more rebellious than anything else.

It was a few years back. Tried looking for it in newspaper archives, but the archives only go back 365 days. Ironically, when I was young enough not to know what the term meant and looked it up in the dictionary. Then I found the meaning on the Internet. Yay.

If I recall correctly, they were somewhere grade 3-6. Did it during recess. Then some kid reported it to the teacher. I'm sure they knew that public nudity was a bad thing, but from [acr=porn]movies[/acr], the kid thought that there's nothing wrong with it. And I think their parents were partly to blame too.

Anyway, interesting thing I found out while looking for that article is that they called off the law that this thread was complaining about. And even more interestingly, it looks like oral sex is common among 12-year-olds today, which means that whatever damage has already been done long ago. So, there's nothing to fight about.

[Jude]

Censorship is proper when it comes to children. There's an opposite side here in the news where 3 schoolboys had oral sex with each each other after finding out what it was.

How is that a bad thing exactly

Explain to me without using emotional appeals and also keep in mind that it's not uncommon for kids to sexually experiment even before hitting puberty

Did I mention they did it in class? Well, it counts as public schoolkid sex then.

You didn't mention that but also how does that make it a bad thing given that they presumably didn't know it was something "wrong" to do

I'm sure you'd agree that child pornography is a bad thing. Apparently, nobody taught them that it's not good to have oral sex in public.

I would agree that child pornography is a bad thing but ONLY FOR THE REASON that it involves adults victimizing children. If children were to get hold of a camera and take naked pics of each other (which I guarantee has happened...matter of fact I was babysitting once and I had to break up such an event) then I don't see what the huge moral outrage is. Kids are kids; they experiment with things adults would consider sexual, but as kids they have no awareness that it's something wrong, we adults just project that onto them, partly out of our own paranoia about child molesters. But it's completely typical and normal for some of this type of thing to go on, and it's just nonsensical to say that it somehow corrupts the morality of children - giving that it goes on with most kids and always has.

Also, "homosexual" activities of this kind (except that the word "sexual" isn't appropriate in this situation) also go on even among kids that will grow up to be straight. It's just a fact of life bro.

The problem was that the parents of one of the kids left some homosexual porn around the house, and the kid thought it was a normal thing.

Next you're gonna be telling me that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Gimme a break.

I also know another kid who gave oral sex to a girl in elementary school. Both of them didn't know that there was anything wrong with it, but now both of them are horribly embarrassed about it and wish it never happened.

I bet if grownups hadn't told them they shouldn't do it, they wouldn't be so embarrassed.

[Vector]

Simply put, they're age-inappropriate.  If I had a kid, I wouldn't let her anywhere near that sort of shit until I knew she could handle it. 

These two sentences do not refer to the same quality.

... I think I mean "maturity-inappropriate," in that case (they're frequently linked).  The point is that the school system must cater to the least mature person in the class, with certain governing assumptions as to what that maturity level might be.

Again, I don't think that it was correct to pull that dictionary.  If they can understand the words under that entry, they are probably mature enough to read the definition itself. 

Yes because we've all seen how well the wide spread reduction in violent, and other 'inappropriate' media and the global epidemic of stopping kids actually facing anything remotely likely to harm them at all has made the youth of society so well adjusted and responsible....

You seem to not comprehend.  I propose that children not be exposed to highly violent material until they understand the "meaning of violence:" i.e., they recognize the difference between people and objects, recognize that violent behavior generally results in someone getting hurt, and will act violently only in full comprehension of what they are doing.

Same thing goes for sex.  I figure it should be discouraged until both parties have some idea as to what the hell is going on.

[CobaltKobold]

The point is that the school system must cater to the least mature person in the class, with certain governing assumptions as to what that maturity level might be.

That's a horrible idea. A couple really.

[Vector]

The point is that the school system must cater to the least mature person in the class, with certain governing assumptions as to what that maturity level might be.

That's a horrible idea. A couple really.

You know, if you're just going to sit here grabbing quotes from my arguments and going "Oh, that's horrible.  That's horrible too.  That's fallacious," without any explanation, it makes it very hard to discuss things with you.

Why do we cater to the less mature people in the class?  Because first of all, the more mature individuals can usually find as much exposure to sex, drugs, and violence as they could possibly want elsewhere.  Second, because access to material for which one is unprepared can have disastrous consequences.

[Jude]

I would love to know what these awful consequences are of kids knowing sex exists

as if they don't from age seven thanks to other kids

[Leafsnail]

The point is that the school system must cater to the least mature person in the class, with certain governing assumptions as to what that maturity level might be.

That's a horrible idea. A couple really.

You know, if you're just going to sit here grabbing quotes from my arguments and going "Oh, that's horrible.  That's horrible too.  That's fallacious," without any explanation, it makes it very hard to discuss things with you.

Why do we cater to the less mature people in the class?  Because first of all, the more mature individuals can usually find as much exposure to sex, drugs, and violence as they could possibly want elsewhere.  Second, because access to material for which one is unprepared can have disastrous consequences.

In which case... it would be better to introduce them to such material in a controlled environment rather than letting them stumble across it on the internet or from another child, wouldn't it?

[Vector]

I would love to know what these awful consequences are of kids knowing sex exists

as if they don't from age seven thanks to other kids

Try giving a kid information on "affection" without telling him what is "sexual affection" and what isn't.

See that kid go through high school with everyone thinking he's gay, when he isn't.  It screws with a person.

In which case... it would be better to introduce them to such material in a controlled environment rather than letting them stumble across it on the internet or from another child, wouldn't it?

Yes.  I do not consider "stumbling upon a novel or dictionary with particular contents" a controlled environment, however.  That's pretty much the same thing as "stumbling onto it via the internet."

[Jreengus]

Try giving a kid information on "affection" without telling him what is "sexual affection" and what isn't.

See that kid go through high school with everyone thinking he's gay, when he isn't.  It screws with a person.

Can you clarify this a bit? I'm confused as to what you mean.

[CobaltKobold]

Sorry, let me be more clear, if paraphrasing you:
1. catering to the lowest common denominator is necessary in any single-group exercise
-necessary if you wish all of the group to advance at the same pace.
2. "with certain assumptions as to what the maturity level..."
-Why make assumptions if you can test?

If maturity is an issue (and only if. Also this applies to other distinguishing factors), then one should divide students accordingly and actually teach at their individual level. Or at least closer to it.

Anyway, interesting thing I found out while looking for that article is that they called off the law that this thread was complaining about.

Is that so? Though my understanding was it wasn't any law, just some parent threatening and getting a school district to comply.

Also,

The dictionary, and an alternative dictionary, will be available to fourth- and fifth-graders, the committee decided.

"Parents will be given the option to determine whether or not they wish their child to have access to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary," Callaway said in her statement.

[Cthulhu]

I've got an idea.

We go up to each kid in first grade, and tell them what oral sex is.  We then ask them if they'd like to try it with their classmates.

If they say yes, they're taken to a farm, fattened up, and eventually eaten.

Two kittens with one drawbridge.

[Vector]

Try giving a kid information on "affection" without telling him what is "sexual affection" and what isn't.

See that kid go through high school with everyone thinking he's gay, when he isn't.  It screws with a person.

Can you clarify this a bit? I'm confused as to what you mean.

*sigh*

Improper teaching of social rules, in general.  You tell someone that a given behavior is affectionate, but you don't teach them when it is appropriate or when it isn't... or things like "affectionate behavior in cats may be affectionate behavior in humans as well, but it will be construed sexually."

Screw my funky childhood ;_;

1. catering to the lowest common denominator is necessary in any single-group exercise
-necessary if you wish all of the group to advance at the same pace.
2. "with certain assumptions as to what the maturity level..."
-Why make assumptions if you can test?

If maturity is an issue (and only if. Also this applies to other distinguishing factors), then one should divide students accordingly and actually teach at their individual level. Or at least closer to it.

When you can write a standardized test for maturity, we'll talk >_>

As-is, I'm not saying that catering to the lowest denominator is necessary in any single-group exercise.  What I'm saying is that in this particular case, the results can be far worse than in other cases.

Example:

Math class is far too fast for a student's mathematical maturity.  The student may develop low self-esteem and decide to concentrate his efforts on the liberal arts.

Material is violent and student does not understand the implications of violence.  Student develops violent tendencies and a habit of attacking people when they do not do what he wants.  Much difficulty ensues.

[Creaca]

I've got an idea.

We go up to each kid in first grade, and tell them what oral sex is.  We then ask them if they'd like to try it with their classmates.

If they say yes, they're taken to a farm, fattened up, and eventually eaten.

Two kittens with one drawbridge.

Not so loud! If the government get's this information we could have it implemented within decades!