Print

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

[FearfulJesuit]

I dunno, I've got some sympathy for the "kids shouldn't do it" camp. I had enough self-control not to be throwing myself at everyone and anyone, and it would definitely have fucked me up if I did. Sex can be dangerous, especially in the hands of the stupid, and hedonism is not a virtue.

[Willfor]

I remember being a kid, and I remember the attitudes of my peers. Many felt they were SUPPOSED to be having sex.

That needs to change. The only way that will happen is to change the message from "its ok little snowflake", to "No, that is f*cking dumb, and you shouldn't be doing it."

I agree with the premise of how kids today feel, but I disagree with your premise on how to fix it. Besides the fact that many parents have already lost credibility in their children's eyes when it comes to telling them not to do something, they are hitting the age where they want to spite you anyway.

Forcing the generational cycle of permissive attitudes towards sex and restrictive ones based on the ideals of the parents to change is not going to happen. You have to let that cycle. There will be a blowback in kids attitudes based on the permissive attitudes of parents in a coming culture cycle, we can't do anything about that. Generations reject their parents, that's how the Victorian era started, that's how the roaring 20's happened, that's how the 50's happened, that's how the 60's happened. The fact that we're attempting to stop the cycle is what is holding it in the permissive phase. Because they are going to keep rejecting the attitudes of their parents. Forever.

[LordSlowpoke]

you know, it would make some sense if we moved away from the notion that people men are supposed to have sex pretty much all the time because sex is what manly men have

it's part of a bigger problem, what with women being called whores if they do the same, but from the anecdotal evidence i gathered it's mostly teenage boys who're persuading their partners that having sex is a great idea

[nenjin]

and hedonism is not a virtue.

What's the line between hedonism and simply experiencing life? I didn't throw myself at anyone, in fact the polar opposite and I still lost my virginity by 15. It didn't turn me into a sex fiend, wreck my life, get me a disease or make me a father before I wanted to be. Because I had enough preparation to try it safely, sort out how I felt about it and settle on the kind of lifestyle I wanted to have. Which is not as much sex as I can possibly get.

There is a weight of judgment on sexuality that is basically impossible to escape in this conversation and I think it clouds the issue. When you start treating what people are going to do with loaded terms like 'hedonism' you're trying to paint one side into a corner, equally as if you refer to people who advocate abstinence as bible thumping virgins. So I guess I disagree to some extent. Hedonism isn't a virtue. Enjoying life is.

[wierd]

Willfor:

So, you are saying that kids are not rational enough to make the decision, because the basis of their decision is based on being rebellious for the sake of being rebellious?

How does that in any way support the notion that they are able to make a rational choice about sex again? By that line of reasoning, we should be flat out lieing to them about contraceptives and the efficacy birth control, because telling them the truth will result in their rejecting the information outright.


Again, and I stress this MOST earnestly--

We give sex ed to kids, for the sake of those that will listen, and make use of the message. Not those that are unwilling to listen, because no amount of telling them will have any impact.

Since we are strictly *already* talking about reaching the kids that *will* listen, we should give them a message that is more in their interests than "you don't have to say yes", and instead say "You should say NO."

[Willfor]

I'm saying that the harder you thump something into them, the more they reject it. Then you try to bring the hammer down harder and they keep rejecting it. I'm saying that just trying the same thing that's been tried, only harder, is a recipe for lack of success. Once again, forever.

Plus the hammer is more likely to permanently destroy relationships whereas setting up a safety net of education is more likely to lead to soft landings when mistakes are made.

[wierd]

Again, by that line of reasoning, increasing the sex ed will only make the matter worse.

[XXSockXX]

Ultimately it comes down to religion, which shouldn't really be a concern, but is one, because it has a massive influence in the US.

Again, I think religion is a dodge in this issue. You don't need to be religious to have a moral philosophy that percludes kids having sex before 18. It's just religious people are the most vocal and vehement about it. (And it's also the law.)

Well, but attempts to limit sex ed clearly come mostly from religious people or people who's morality is strongly informed by certain religious views. There is a certain realism or pragmatism necessary here that does not sit well with people with absolute moral expecations.

[nenjin]

Since we are strictly *already* talking about reaching the kids that *will* listen, we should give them a message that is more in their interests than "you don't have to say yes", and instead say "You should say NO."

This goes back to what I'm saying. In exactly two years, these kids will be legal adults in the United States. Would you tell a kid that's 18 year and 1 day old that "YOU SHOULD SAY NO."? No. Because they're an adult. Do you wait until the the day they're 18 years and 1 day to start treating them like an adult? No. Otherwise you end up with the exact recipe for stupid sex: an 18 year old man-woman-child going "I'm an adult!" without really knowing what that means.

I guess I'm in the "scare em a little bit" camp. Not with close ups of advanced STDs, but with #realtalk. In my personal experience, it was way more effective than being treated like a child where your parents' argument always boiled down to "Because I, the adult, say so." You want kids to be responsible? Talk to them like responsible people, not children. That's all most 16 year olds want anyways, to be respected like the thing they're going to be very shortly, even if in the end they don't really know what that means. So start teaching them. And in this instance, you can't make them earn it because they're going out the door when they turn 18 and not looking back. And you're not going to chase them down.

Well, but attempts to limit sex ed clearly come mostly from religious people or people who's morality is strongly informed by certain religious views. There is a certain realism or pragmatism necessary here that does not sit well with people with absolute moral expecations.

Can't deny that. But their stakes are just as real as anyone else's so you can't set their argument aside into another conversation. As is our wont to do as Americans.

[Caz]

Willfor:

So, you are saying that kids are not rational enough to make the decision, because the basis of their decision is based on being rebellious for the sake of being rebellious?

How does that in any way support the notion that they are able to make a rational choice about sex again? By that line of reasoning, we should be flat out lieing to them about contraceptives and the efficacy birth control, because telling them the truth will result in their rejecting the information outright.


Again, and I stress this MOST earnestly--

We give sex ed to kids, for the sake of those that will listen, and make use of the message. Not those that are unwilling to listen, because no amount of telling them will have any impact.

Since we are strictly *already* talking about reaching the kids that *will* listen, we should give them a message that is more in their interests than "you don't have to say yes", and instead say "You should say NO."

Why not tell them to use contraception? :S

[Frumple]

That needs to change. The only way that will happen is to change the message from "its ok little snowflake", to "No, that is f*cking dumb, and you shouldn't be doing it."

... man, I hear what you're saying, but the cursory student of history in me notes that they've been trying to push that message on kids, sometimes with literal and systematic physical abuse, for centuries... hell, probably millennium. And failing. Every time sex avoidance has become a major aspect of a social group, large or small, it's neither stuck nor been effective to any particularly meaningful degree. It's, just. It hasn't worked. Pretty much every sign points that it won't work. There's a relatively limited set of things we're more or less wired to do, and, well...

I'd say do what nenjin said, but don't waste the effort actually trying to influence the social attitude regarding the subject. It doesn't seem to really matter what the social attitude is. Permissive or impermissive, what's considered underage sex these days happens anyway, and it happens to a pretty great degree. Only thing that social attitude seems to change is the reaction to it, rather than much in the way of frequency. And from what I've seen "special snowflake" seems to do a lot better on that end of things

Note and highlight the risks, sure, but keep stigma as far a way from the subject as possible. Risky and full of serious consequences, but a lot of things are that we don't call fucking dumb.

Again, by that line of reasoning, increasing the sex ed will only make the matter worse.

Only if sex ed consists of saying "No" first and loudest.

[Willfor]

Again, by that line of reasoning, increasing the sex ed will only make the matter worse.

Do you not see the difference between telling someone "NEVER" and telling someone "If you're going to do X, you will be less likely to have trouble if you do Y"?

For instance, "STAY AWAY FROM THE FUCKING OVEN YOU IDIOT", and "You shouldn't stick your hand in an oven, but if you're going to, you should at least wear an oven mitt."

Because your proposal is going to do the first, and what we're arguing for will do the second.

[wierd]

Mostly, I see the religious prude side being more offended by the idea that their little snowflake has sexual aparatus, and has hormones.

The very idea is repulsive to them, and they want very much not to even think about that. Denying knowledge, in their minds, removes the problem.  Out of sight, out of mind.

We all know how disasterous that is.

Yes, your little angel will one day be having sex. That's the way the world works. No amount of pretending otherwise will keep your child staying 5 years old forever.

Either you pony up and prepare your child for adulthood, or they will grow up and be unprepared for it.

My parents were fundies, but they didn't shelter me like most other fundies. I knew about things like sex and violence long before puberty. I was prepared for it, and I am happy they did so.

If there is a problem with parents losing credibility with their children, it is because the parents aren't being honest with their children, and the children have gotten wise.



Willfor:

My message for the kid is "Unless you are cooking in that oven, your hand shouldn't be in there at all. Are you cooking in that oven? No? Then keep your hands out of the oven."

If they say "yes", THEN I tell them to use the oven mitt.

Your way implies it is OK to play around in the oven.

[LordSlowpoke]

-snip-

[Caz]

My message for the kid is "Unless you are cooking in that oven, your hand shouldn't be in there at all. No? Then keep your hands out of the oven."

If they say "yes", THEN I tell them to use the oven mitt.

Your way implies it is OK to play around in the oven.

What's wrong with cooking in the oven?