Things I Wish I'd Learned About Straight Sex in High School

[_Sal]

Actually, we are called to judge actions, God judges the heart. Yes, God is love, but God is also Holy and Righteous and He cannot, nor will not allow anyone into His presence without His Son's redemption applied to the individual soul.

man's understanding is limited that's why god judges the heart because we are incapable of understanding

 

[Kal'Stang]

Natural reality is awkward and not conducive to feminist liberal ideology.

https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/thi...bout-straight-sex-in-high-school-add7b61abaec

I couldn't help but laugh at this:

Trigger warning: for the rest of this explanation, I’m going to call people who ovulate “women” and people who ejaculate sperm “men” because I’m just not woke enough to explain the the details of impregnation in non-gendered language without sounding like a martian robot. Sorry.

 

[Deuce]

So I suppose it's funny that people that believe in traditional values are shamed today and made to feel less than. :lol:

What is even funnier is that during the fight against traditional values they were called sexists and they are STILL called sexists today.

You're only shamed when you try to force your antiquated, provably worse teaching methods onto my children. Have a nice day!

And yes, actually, people who were sexist 30 years ago are probably still sexist now.

 

[Deuce]

People aren't just going to cope with something they fundamentally disagree with. Just sayin'.

Your inability to cope with my choices really is not my problem.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Natural reality is awkward and not conducive to feminist liberal ideology.

https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/thi...bout-straight-sex-in-high-school-add7b61abaec

Had you bothered to read the article you linked to, you'd know it had nothing, zero, nada to do with 'feminist liberal ideology'.

"Natural reality" requires dealing with reality. I suggest you check it out.

 

[Henrin]

You're only shamed when you try to force your antiquated, provably worse teaching methods onto my children. Have a nice day!

And yes, actually, people who were sexist 30 years ago are probably still sexist now.

How does that happen? You mean forced on your child through public schooling or something? If so, how is that different than forcing your views on my children through public schooling?

 

[Deuce]

How does that happen? You mean forced on your child through public schooling or something? If so, how is that different than forcing your views on my children through public schooling?

Comprehensive sexual education results in objectively better outcomes, that's how.

The method I support results in lower rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. The well-being of the children comes first.

 

[Henrin]

Comprehensive sexual education results in objectively better outcomes, that's how.

The method I support results in lower rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. The well-being of the children comes first.

So not teaching kids sex ed is forcing something on kids? WTF?

 

[Deuce]

So not teaching kids sex ed is forcing something on kids? WTF?

Which school are you referring to that has no sex education program at all?

 

[Henrin]

Which school are you referring to that has no sex education program at all?

I didn't say any schools didn't have a sex education program. What I was suggesting is that not having a sex education program wouldn't force anything on children.

 

[Deuce]

I didn't say any schools didn't have a sex education program. What I was suggesting is that not having a sex education program wouldn't force anything on children.

Ok, but that's not really one of the options here so I don't care. I'm not familiar with research comparing comprehensive sex education to no sex education, but I feel pretty confident saying that no sex education would also have worse outcomes.

Abstinence-only programs are what social conservatives spent decades trying to push into schools. They're based on religious ideas and actually make things worse. We get more young women pregnant, and more disease, all because some people want to make sure people (well, women mostly) feel shame doing what is arguably the most natural thing someone can do. Abstinence-only is about punishment, not education.

 

[Henrin]

Ok, but that's not really one of the options here so I don't care. I'm not familiar with research comparing comprehensive sex education to no sex education, but I feel pretty confident saying that no sex education would also have worse outcomes.

Abstinence-only programs are what social conservatives spent decades trying to push into schools. They're based on religious ideas and actually make things worse. We get more young women pregnant, and more disease, all because some people want to make sure people (well, women mostly) feel shame doing what is arguably the most natural thing someone can do. Abstinence-only is about punishment, not education.

Well, I don't really care for someone that applies a position to me that I didn't take and then goes and blasts that position like I did in fact take it up.

 

[CLAX1911]

Delete

 

[CLAX1911]

Natural reality is awkward and not conducive to feminist liberal ideology.

https://medium.com/@emmalindsay/thi...bout-straight-sex-in-high-school-add7b61abaec

Trigger warnings are silly. If you can't handle conversing stay at home.

 

[Deuce]

Well, I don't really care for someone that applies a position to me that I didn't take and then goes and blasts that position like I did in fact take it up.

I don't care for someone who demands education programs that result in greater rates of teen pregnancy and disease. Have a nice day.

 

[Deuce]

Trigger warnings are silly. If you can't handle conversing stay at home.

Yeah, soldiers with PTSD who might be sensitive about certain war-related topics shouldn't be warned about said topics. It's better to blindside them in class with the material. I agree. **** em.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yeah, soldiers with PTSD who might be sensitive about certain war-related topics shouldn't be warned about said topics. It's better to blindside them in class with the material. I agree. **** em.

Lol, that trigger warning wasn't for veterans.

 

[maquiscat]

A private contract where the other party is the government? :lamo Sorry, but did you actually think through that position before throwing it out there?

The contract is between two individuals and the government records it. It is not a party to the contract. They further make laws regarding those who hold such contracts, but they are still not a party in such a contract.

 

[maquiscat]

Actually, the one thing that stays consistent is the Word of God. That never changes.

Really, then why are there so many different bibles, and even more telling so many denominations, many of whom will tell you if you are not part of their specific church, you aren't actuallly saved. The actual Word may not change, but man's presentation of it across the board has to the point it is not here any more.

 

[Your Star]

I couldn't help but laugh at this:

Ignorance, yay!

 

[maquiscat]

No, there IS that fight against the one proper definition of marriage and family, there is the fight against the unborn child. Sorry, but your whacked out Leftist worldview is a failure.

Given that there has never been a singular definition of either family or marriage across the world and history, you statement lacks substance.

So-called "equality" where pastors are going to be FORCED to perform SS marriages, where any talk of sexual purity is considered a hate crime? Orwell would be proud of you.

Can you show one piece of legislation that would accomplish such a claim?

 

[maquiscat]

Actually, we are called to judge actions, God judges the heart. Yes, God is love, but God is also Holy and Righteous and He cannot, nor will not allow anyone into His presence without His Son's redemption applied to the individual soul.

So why is it that people like you seem to want to claim absolute knowledge as to who has this redemption or not?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Ignorance, yay!

Nope, acknowledgement.

 

[faithful_servant]

Yeah we should do it the conservative way and just not teach sex-ed at all and let our genitals remain a mystery draped in religious dogma.

I've never met one single conservative who thinks that way. I've known a few who object to HOW sex ed. is taught, but none that object to it being taught. I have known Christians who object to how it's taught who are conservative, but thier objections are based on their faith, not their politics.

Broad-brushed bigoted garbage like this is a huge problem for this country. Maybe you should learn something new today and stop thinking that the grossly mistaken idea you're putting forth is accurate and instead start spreading the truth.

 

[faithful_servant]

Yeah we should do it the conservative way and just not teach sex-ed at all and let our genitals remain a mystery draped in religious dogma.

exactly right, we should go back to the good old days when people held good strong traditional values and if anyone stepped out of that line, well then they were shamed beyond belief and made to feel less than

oh wait...there never were "good old days"

^^^^^^^^^

not in my world...in my world there is harmony, acceptance and support, it's called RESPECT

there is no fight against traditional values...that is all in your head

the only fight today is for equality where it still does not exist and the fight to ensure the rights that were gained are not lost, you know "rights" like the right to decide what is best for one's own body be that an abortion or the right to die with dignity

This is NOT respect. It's the utter antithesis of respect.