Eegore wrote on 05/26/23 at 11:30:28:


'Safe Sex' and same sex interaction education , should start when a child is 10 (+/-).       OK got it !

What were the percentages of 'teen pregnancies in the 50's', VS the teen pregnancies and Cutting Off sexual parts today ?

Why is it BAD,  for some nationalities/religions to, 'cut off Clits', on women. Yet in the USA it is OK to cut off Boobs and D icks ?

Way too much nuance to explain. If you don't understand that restricting perverted books from children is something society owes the children, that's on all of you who are confused.
Homosexuality Is perverted.
Atheists may not get it.

 I never said restricting perverted books from children is bad.  I never said anything like that, you just equate anything other than absolute agreement, to absolute DISagreement.  When you asked who gets to decide who "Their" kids get exposed to I said "Both" because I don't assume every parent acts in the best interest of their child.  

 The issue with any active, healthy human parent saying they should have complete control over what THEIR kid sees, is that they have to be willing to let other active, healthy parents have the Same rights, or it's hypocritical.  The only way to do this is to let each active, healthy parent(s) have a choice.

 I want complete control over what My kid sees.  I also will stop Your kid from seeing certain things.  That sounds equal?

No  comment/stats on:

"What were the percentages of 'teen pregnancies in the 50's', VS the teen pregnancies and Cutting Off sexual parts today ?

Why is it BAD,  for some nationalities/religions to, 'cut off Clits', on women. Yet in the USA it is OK to cut off Boobs and D icks ?":



 No comment on:

You can't tell the difference between deciding something for Your kid, and deciding for ALL other kids?

Sure I can.

If I had Children, (which I don't)

I would 'decide', a Boy child would NOT be told/taught/explained how to SUCK a D ick. (Nor a Girl child)

YET, the UL, DFI, FDS, 'WOKE", Socialists will, 'DECIDE', For me.


 This is why I said healthy active parents should be able to choose for their own kid and only their own kid with the exclusion of all other known humans.  So nobody is deciding for you.  You get to decide.  How that is "word salad" I do not know, I clearly provide two different situations and could not logically pick only "one" unless only one human child existed on the planet.


""What were the percentages of 'teen pregnancies in the 50's', VS the teen pregnancies today. And the Cutting Off sexual parts today ?"

 I don't know.


"Why is it BAD,  for some nationalities/religions to, 'cut off Clits', on women. Yet in the USA it is OK to cut off Boobs and D icks ?"

 I think the primary difference is consent.  Tying someone down and forcibly removing their genitals is considerably "DIFFERENT" than having a human choose to undergo a procedure with informed consent.  Force is, typically, considered "BAD", or more "BAD" than choice.

 Acknowledging there is a difference between force and choice is not "defending" any action.  Just as acknowledging a green shirt is different than yellow shirt is not defending any shirt color.  Knowing the difference is not choosing one shirt over another.

 Consent with children is another issue all together.  The question isn't one of comparing genital removal across cultures.  It is when can a human provide informed consent, or have medical power of attorney over another, to approve permanent body changes?  If a kid can't choose to get a tattoo because it's "permanent" why can they surgically change genders?


"Why do so many medical professionals, 'cut off  Boobs and D icks' ?"

 I would assume due to demand.
 

As a answer to the comparison of then and today.

 Yes.  My answer is I do not know.  


"You chose to 'imply' that yesterdays Sex Ed was bad, and today's is better."

 You chose to infer this, I did not imply it.   The problem here, as usual, is that if I am not in lock-step agreement, you consider me to be in DISagreement.  Or if you infer I am saying something is "bad" then I can only mean the other thing is "good" or "better".

 This is flawed logic as we all know a human can think both methods of education are ineffective.  I can think STD genital wart image education is ineffective, AND that other forms of sex education are ineffective too.  This fact can of course not be Observed.


"Well, unless you consider,
educating 10 year old Johnny,
and 9 year old Bobby
how to jack each other off."

 The fundamental difference here is Sex Education is not exclusively a how-to guide.  Just as firearm education is not exclusively how to aim and pull a trigger.  A human can learn safe firearm handling, storage, cleaning, without learning how to go murder people.  But anti-gun will choose to ignore this.

 Ignoring firearm safety won't stop negligent discharges.  Ignoring Johnny and Bobby are giving each other hand-jobs under the bleachers won't stop hand-jobs.  Obviously how to give a better hand job instruction isn't the answer either.  For anyone willing to Observe, that last sentence means today's sex-ed is NOT better, if that is what they are doing.

 The question is what do kids today need to know about what they are choosing to go do, to keep them safe.  

Again, because you don't Want to admit it.

It's NOT JUST during The Sex Ed CLASS, the children are being inundated with this insanity.

 I never said it was JUST during Sex-ed, I was just responding to MnSpring on that part of the multiple aspects of this conversation.


"Homosexual acts being promoted in school is WRONG."

 As usual, you interpret that if I am not in absolute agreement on all aspects of everything, I am in complete DISagreement.  I never said schools should promote homosexual acts, I said schools should provide information in regard to safe practices, active healthy parents should have choices in this, because a teacher telling Johnny not to kiss Billy has never stopped that from happening.

 That never worked in the past, it won't work today.

 

 

And you have facts/numbers/stats to support that ?

 Or is it just your opinion !


 It is my opinion.  Do you know many humans that didn't kiss another human because a teacher told them not to?


Oh, "...If abstaining from sexual contact, and scared straight images of STD's worked we would have stopped having teen pregnancies in the 50's. ..."  
IS you Implying.
Regardless of your spin


 It does not imply anything else is "better", because some things can be the "Same" or even "Worse".  You will only accept "Better" as an outcome, even though multiple other assessments exist.   Just as you insist any alteration to the 2nd Amendment can only be "gun control", as if there is no way anyone could propose pro-gun ownership changes to the 2nd.   This makes no sense.

  My opinion implies that if the strategy were effective, it would have been effective years ago.  Doing the same thing today is no more effective - humans still have sex under age 18 or prior to marriage no matter how many STD pictures you show them.  The ratio of pro-sex media, social interaction etc. far, far exceeds health class or sex-ed.

 That is my opinion, based on the number of humans being treated for STD's, the number of humans still reproducing at a young age, and all these abortion discussions that keep going on.

I guess kids will just have to learn about sex the old fashioned way....  
Internet porn