Isn’t this for parents to do?

December 30th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders feel that the Roast Busters case showed high school students needed to be taught about respectful attitudes to sex, not just the mechanics of sexual intercourse.

and rape prevention came into the spotlight in October amid allegations against Auckland teenagers who boasted on the internet about having sex with drunk and underage girls.

A Herald-DigiPoll survey showed 74.7 per cent of respondents believed high schools should teach more than the physical and medical aspects of sex and also emphasise respect for sexual partners.

I’m not sure that is a role for high schools. While I think sex education should be more than purely physical and medical, I think attitudes of respect have to come from parents. If they don’t get the right values from their family, then schools won’t be able to do much.

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said parents should be responsible for teaching kids about sexuality, but there needed to be an institutional backup if parents failed.

That’s a pretty sound view.

Tags:

103 Responses to “Isn’t this for parents to do?”

  1. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Kids mostly learn (or fail to learn) attitudes of respect before they get to school.

    …but there needed to be an institutional backup if parents failed.

    Sounds ok in theory but how would this be managed in practice? National Standards in sex and respect? Exams? Test parents or kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. duggledog (1,117 comments) says:

    It is a parent’s job. If the parent doesn’t feel comfortable doing it (not unusual for dads!) then some other family member. Schools should be the last resort for education of this sort.

    Schools are fast becoming the one stop shop for everything; including how to cook and grow food. I don’t believe the parents are too busy I believe a hell of a lot simply don’t give a shit. The long tail of socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Alan Wilkinson (1,798 comments) says:

    I can’t see why people think the Roast Busters problem was about sex. These guys had no concern for people full stop. Sex was merely the playing field to display it.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    These guys had no concern for people full stop. Sex was merely the playing field to display it.

    Very true. Probably weren’t offered enough positive reinforcement during their childhoods.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    Maybe we could make going to church fashionable again, rather than denigrating it? We might end up with Margaret Thatchers and Desmond Tutus instead of Miley-Cyruses and Denis Rodmans

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wf (319 comments) says:

    It actually takes time to instill respect – you have to do it before the kids can look it up on the internet for fun and curiosity.
    There is a latency period from about 5 – 10 where the child has no particular interest in matters sexual, but often asks questions out of idle curiosity. That is the time for answering questions in the spirit in which they are asked, talking about what is acceptable behavior, and what ‘we, in our family do and consider right’ while acknowledging that other families may have different standards.

    Parents have to prepare in advance so that they can state their case with confidence!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    The girls should also be taught that you do not put themselves in a vulnerable position just like tourist have to be educated the risk of camping not in a camping ground. In both cases educating people how to keep themselves safe does not in anyway justify criminal actions of offenders. I just got off the phone to a good friend in the UK. He lived here for a year or two in the late 60s and visited with his wife about 5 years ago. He was under the impression that NZ was very safe.

    There are common sense thing that girls can do to reduce the risk of being raped and they should be taught this.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. bringbackdemocracy (350 comments) says:

    Less Government and more parental involvement can only be good.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nigel Kearney (747 comments) says:

    Alan is absolutely right. Lack of basic respect for other human beings cannot be fixed with better sex education. I actually do think that sex education should be completely value neutral and focus only the physical and medical aspects. The rest is for parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Maybe we could make going to church fashionable again

    “Fire and brimstone will continue until respect ensues!”

    I don’t think churches have ever been very good at teaching safe sexual practices. They tended to try and suppress one of our basic instincts through fear and punishment. Often unsuccessfully.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jawnbc (40 comments) says:

    Sexual health education should be contextualised in the context of relationships. Part of that contextualisation should include exploitation, coercion, and violence—how they manifest, how to deal with them, warning signs to get out of a situation quickly.

    For boys and girls.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Only camping behind barbed wire with armed guards? There’s been some terrible assaults in public camping grounds.

    The girls should also be taught that you do not put themselves in a vulnerable position just like tourist have to be educated the risk of camping not in a camping ground.

    Like never being in the presence of a male without a chaperone?

    There are common sense thing that girls can do to reduce the risk of being raped and they should be taught this.

    I agree with this. But it’s also common sense to reduce bad behaviour from males – who in a traditional sense are supposed to protect females, not abuse them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    The subject is covered under ‘health’ in some Auckland schools and dealt with very well. That, along with parental advice about respect and standards gives teenagers a good start. As for that ‘group’ as Alan Wilkinson says:

    ‘These guys had no concern for people full stop. Sex was merely the playing field to display it.’

    Which doesn’t seem to be reason for society to ‘only’ teach children common sense as Chuck advocates but rather for society to ensure an appropriate reaction to the activities of such groups as these.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dime (8,778 comments) says:

    i saw something the other day that said 75% of men ages 17-23 will fuck a stranger if asked.

    its what we do.

    the change has really been in the girls. reasons: early access to porn – young chicks fuck like porn stars. tons of garbage parents out there. girls have no respect for themselves. damaged goods. daddy issues. slutty mums. etc etc

    dirtbag guys will always exploit.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ShawnLH (2,097 comments) says:

    From Pete George:

    “I don’t think churches have ever been very good at teaching safe sexual practices.”

    Yes, they have, as the only safe sexual practice is monogamous marriage.

    “They tended to try and suppress one of our basic instincts through fear and punishment.”

    Not true. First, “suppression” is not a legitimate psychological category, repression is, and repression is very rare. Merely exercising sexual self-discipline is not “suppression”, anymore than choosing not to rape is suppression. Moreover, the “fear and punishment” claim is largely a mythical invention of the Liberal media.

    The most psychologically healthy and positive messages concerning sex I have heard have been in Churches.

    Sticking a bit of rubber on your Johnson and hoping you don’t get an STD is not safe, it’s Russian Roulette.

    On to the issue.

    The State and it’s foot soldiers has played a major role in creating the kind’s of attitudes we see in these boys. Destroying the traditional family, churning out hundreds of thousands of fatherless boys through destructive welfare policies, denigrating the importance of fathers by claiming that fathers are not important and can be replaced by single mums or lesbian “parents” and, most importantly, the destruction wrought by allowing Family Planning virtual free and monopolistic control if sex education.

    So, no, the State is not the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said parents should be responsible for teaching kids about sexuality, but there needed to be an institutional backup if parents failed.

    That’s a pretty sound view.

    Sorry, but how does this differ from what the article is about? Better sex ed in school is good for all and complements what parents teach.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. doggone7 (493 comments) says:

    Not at school is where children spend the big majority of their time and that is where they learn most stuff including ‘respect.’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. iMP (2,154 comments) says:

    Great comment ShawnLH.

    eszett – sex education has been in NZ schools for decades, and we still have high rates of teenage pregnancy. Overseas, HIV infection amongst educated gay men is still on the rise, and we have record levels of STDs (especially syphilis and gonorrhea) in heterosexual young men in NZ. So, “education fixes everything” is just an empty myth.

    How long have we been educating about binge drinking, smoking and drink/driving? I rest my case.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ShawnLH (2,097 comments) says:

    ” Better sex ed in school is good for all and complements what parents teach.”

    The same “better sex education” we have had for thirty years at least? Family Planning has failed totally to achieve anything positive except make NZ one of the worst developed countries for STD’s. More of the same is just stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    the only safe sexual practice is monogamous marriage.

    Sexual practices in monogamous marriage are not always safe. They have included rape and in extreme cases also murder.

    There’s no reason why sex in a polygamous marriage shouldn’t be able to be safe.

    And sex outside marriage can easily be (and often is) as safe as marital sex.

    The State and it’s foot soldiers has played a major role in creating the kind’s of attitudes we see in these boys.

    No. Attitudes are formed pre-school and in family and social life.

    I agree that the state is not the answer, but it can complement and assist.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    How long have we been educating about binge drinking, smoking and drink/driving?

    For decades. And we have seen a significant reduction in all three.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dime (8,778 comments) says:

    “Sexual practices in monogamous marriage are not always safe. They have included rape and in extreme cases also murder.”

    you really are a fuckwit

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    To show you’re not explain how rape and sexual violence in a marriage is safe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    PG, You forgot someone could suffer a heart attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    explain how rape and sexual violence in a marriage is safe.

    Pete rape and sexual violence also occurs when people go to the pub and to nightclubs. Does this mean that pubs and nightclubs are havens of rape and sexual violence?

    Rape and sexual violence also happens when people aren’t married, as well. Does this mean there’s a casual link between people who aren’t married and that?

    Rape and sexual violence also happens when… etc etc etc.

    Those facts of life and how it is lived Pete is why you’re a f-wit. You can’t seem to draw any distinction between a happenstance and a genuine cause-effect relationship. You also can’t seem to draw any distinction between something that is practiced as its supposed to be practised and something that’s a perversion of it. For instance between marriage as its supposed to be practised and a perversion of it. Instead you conflate the two and pretend they’re one and the same like some utter moron whose never visited planet Earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Reid to earth – why don’t you lecture Shawn, he’s the one who claimed “the only safe sexual practice is monogamous marriage.” Sex isn’t always safe in a monogamous marriage, as you yourself seem to be implying amongst your hissy fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nigel Kearney (747 comments) says:

    In the old days, a woman’s financial security depended on a long term commitment from a man. Men provided this commitment because women would not have sex with them otherwise. Now that women are financially independent, either by working or getting welfare, it is much easier for men to get sex without commitment and the incentive for men to respect women is therefore greatly reduced.

    The old way did have some advantages but there is no way to go back to it now. However we can still treat males as pariahs if they don’t respect women and don’t honour their commitments. Len Brown and the roast busters are two sides of the same coin.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    Sex isn’t always safe in a monogamous marriage, as you yourself seem to be implying amongst your hissy fit.

    Earth to Pete. Read what I said, again.

    Sex is always safe in a monogamous marriage when it’s practiced as a marriage is meant to be practised. If the “marriage” is a perversion of marriage then a whole lot of things can happen, including murder, rape and you name it. But to blame that on marriage is why you don’t live on the same planet as the rest of us. Because the rest of us know that if you do that to your “wife” then it’s your fault, not the fault of the institution of marriage. This is very similar to the fact that if you go to the pub and then someone who was at the pub gets raped, normally, on planet Earth, the pub is not the thing that gets blamed for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Nigel, in “the old days” when a women’s financial security depended on marrying a man who provided the household finances there was probably less respect in relationships and marriage than there is now. It wasn’t uncommon for men to own women, financially and emotionally. That didn’t always involve respect, sometimes the opposite.

    Now if a woman (or man) doesn’t respect their partner/spouse it is much easier for them to separate rather than continue in a respectless relationship.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Sex is always safe in a monogamous marriage when it’s practiced as a marriage is meant to be practised.

    But that’s not what Shawn claimed. You’ve totally misinterpreted the point I made.

    And it’s quite easy to practise safe sex in a polygamous marriage or outside marriage – when sex is practiced as it is meant to be practised.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ShawnLH (2,097 comments) says:

    Pete:

    “And sex outside marriage can easily be (and often is) as safe as marital sex.”

    No, not at all. As far as STD’s are concerned that is not remotely true.

    As to rape and sexual violence, these occur far, far more in polygamous marriages and society, and far more between strangers, than within marriage.

    The Feminist myth that until recently, marriage was about money and property ownership, is exactly that, a myth. There is actually less respect in modern marriages than in the “old days” because why respect someone you can divorce at a moments notice?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ShawnLH (2,097 comments) says:

    “But that’s not what Shawn claimed.”

    Yes, it is.

    “And it’s quite easy to practise safe sex in a polygamous marriage or outside marriage – when sex is practiced as it is meant to be practised.”

    Nonsense. Any person who has multiple partners is practicing unsafe sex. The “safe sex” ideology is a lie. Condoms are not safe. Having multiple partners is not safe, physically or emotionally.

    There are no guarantees in an imperfect, corrupted world, but traditional marriage (one man and one women for life) is a far safer option than any other.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. dime (8,778 comments) says:

    “There are no guarantees in an imperfect, corrupted world, but traditional marriage (one man and one women for life) is a far safer option than any other.”

    even i agree with that

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    You’ve totally misinterpreted the point I made.

    No Pete, you were claiming that in your hallucination, marriage brings a cast-iron guarantee that nothing violent will ever happen and the fact that it doesn’t means it’s not worth the paper its written on.

    And I was saying nothing is guaranteed in human relationships but when marriage is used properly there’s no problem however if something untoward occurs there’s no point in blaming the vehicle for the actions of the driver.

    it’s quite easy to practise safe sex in a polygamous marriage or outside marriage – when sex is practiced as it is meant to be practised.

    Hard to know what to say in the fact of such insight and wisdom Pete. You should open up a shop and sell your priceless pearls, they’re so profound and penetrating in their perspicacity. Suffice to say that one could also practice safe sex with farm animals if one so desired, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, does it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ShawnLH (2,097 comments) says:

    The effects of Liberal insanity.

    Uncomfortable Truths about Family Breakdown: Children without married parents miss out on more than just income.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367109/uncomfortable-truths-about-family-breakdown-michael-barone

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    Marriage doesn’t fail people – people fail Marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    So, “education fixes everything” is just an empty myth.

    How long have we been educating about binge drinking, smoking and drink/driving? I rest my case.

    LOL, you rest your case, iMP? And what case would that be then?

    No one says that “education fixes everything” but if one thing is sure it is that ignorance fixes nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……To show you’re not explain how rape and sexual violence in a marriage is safe….”

    Raping is no part of any Law – let alone Marriage Law.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    “And sex outside marriage can easily be (and often is) as safe as marital sex.”

    No, not at all. As far as STD’s are concerned that is not remotely true.

    I’ve had sex as safely outside marriage as I have within marriage, as I’m sure many people do.

    As to rape and sexual violence, these occur far, far more in polygamous marriages and society, and far more between strangers, than within marriage.

    We don’t have polygamous marriage in New Zealand so it doesn’t occur at all here. Statistics show that sexual assaults are more comment between people who are known to each other than involving stangers,

    The Feminist myth that until recently, marriage was about money and property ownership, is exactly that, a myth.

    It’s not a myth. “Historically, in most cultures, married women had very few rights of their own, being considered, along with the family’s children, the property of the husband; as such, they could not own or inherit property, or represent themselves legally…”- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

    There are no guarantees in an imperfect, corrupted world, but traditional marriage (one man and one women for life) is a far safer option than any other.

    No. It’s possible (and common) to be just as safe in a non-marriage relationship. And there’s no reason why same sex marriage partners can’t be as safe as opposite sex marriage partners.

    Because pre-marital sex is common and inevitable with many people (and has been since before homo erectus) the safest approach is to assume it may happen and teach children safe sexual practices accordingly.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Tautaioleua (266 comments) says:

    As a young person, let me be honest. It is more AWKWARD to discuss the “birds & bees” with your peers at school than it is at home with your parents.

    Sex ed is not as effective in schools. Those teaching it will tell you how most boys are in the back cracking jokes at every second word, and most girls are extremely uncomfortable and self-conscious. I see that they will now separate the genders in some cases but it’s still very much the same.

    Boys are too busy disguising how uncomfortable we feel with jokes to take any of the content seriously. It’s a complete waste of time and space.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. the conservative (57 comments) says:

    No sex education should be in schools, except in biology lessons–period; it is not a function of education. In education, NZ is getting too far away from the basics and getting distracted by social issues that have no place in the classroom.

    If some parents fail then surely the problem could be resolved through parents and their doctors. Doctors should have more say in this area.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “Because pre-marital sex is common and inevitable with many people (and has been since before homo erectus) the safest approach is to assume it may happen and teach children safe sexual practices accordingly.”

    PG, What are the odds of a female being infected with HIV if her partner is HIV+ and they use a condom? How much is the risk increased is she takes it up the backside?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Chuck – the risk is the same whether she is married to him or not married.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said parents should be responsible for teaching kids about sexuality, but there needed to be an institutional backup if parents failed.

    I liked Colin Craig more when he didn’t say much.

    Eszett said:

    Sorry, but how does this differ from what the article is about? Better sex ed in school is good for all and complements what parents teach.

    It’s different in that the article is promoting the institutional backup for all school children.

    It’s bizarre, but it appears DPF is more conservative on this issue than Colin Craig, yet he’s praising Colin Craig for what he said.

    I’m left wondering how the school would determine if “parents have failed”. Maybe a multi-choice test to check if the values taught by the parents aren’t the right ones? My mind is boggling right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    LM – I said the same thing, seems totally impractical. Maybe Craig wants practical tests.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……The same “better sex education” we have had for thirty years at least? Family Planning has failed totally to achieve anything positive except make NZ one of the worst developed countries for STD’s. More of the same is just stupid…..”

    Quite so.

    Maori had their own genocide – Maori women had the highest abortion rate in the world of any group of people.
    There’s no Mana in that – for male Maori also. The denegration of maori women needs to stop, and without a solid moral foundation to work from for both male and female then this will not happen anytime soon.

    Teaching kids the ‘mechanics and rules of sex’ without any moral foundation to support their decision making has simply lead to the statistics we see today. Everywhere in the west we have increasing amounts of sexual diseases, sexual assualts, sexual confusion, fatherless children, divorce, suicide of young people and of seperated and divorced fathers, rank feminism, rank mysogony, rank hypocracy.

    And in all that time ‘sex education’ in schools is being taught to younger and younger children.

    Epic fail.

    This idea of having futher sex education in schools is nothing more than allowing the ‘sexualists’ of society to impose upon younger and younger children [in the name of prevention]their idea of ‘normal behaviour’ :

    Anal ‘sex’. Homosexuality. Homosexuality seen as normal. Abortion. Abortion without parental knowledge. Sexual diseases & abortion ect are not ‘shameful’. Porn as being ‘part’ of sex ect.
    If a school teacher can get away with implying that this is all good – then young males will also see it as being good for young women and sexually ‘confused’ young males. A disaster waiting to happen.

    Nothing will change, as valueing all of the above as being the equivelent of ‘best sexual practices and relationships’ doesn’t allow the young participents to see the wood from the trees as far as relationships are concerned. The usual suspects, children from marginal backgrounds will remain the victims, in their youth, and then throughout their lives.

    Colin Craig is correct. Families should be fully supported by government where sexual education is concerned – and not having that important resonsability undermined by people who have another agenda – namely the homosexualists and feminists.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Fentex (663 comments) says:

    Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said parents should be responsible for teaching kids about sexuality, but there needed to be an institutional backup if parents failed.

    That’s a pretty sound view.

    It seems odd to me to dismiss a need for school sex education to include the topic of respect for people because that’s parents responsibility, then agree with the position that schools should do it in case parents don’t.

    Just a while ago DPF wrote that there shouldn’t be school zones, but of course schools should have zones (I paraphrase slightly, but that was the logical position in the post).

    I think it demonstrates the problems with having a feeling, an idea of what one would like the world to be, and how blithely asserting what ought be immediately grates and crashes against how things are.

    Schools shouldn’t teach this thing society needs taught, except of course when parents don’t. Of course that’s the case – anything parents teach obviously doesn’t need schools to teach – if parents taught reading and writing schools wouldn’t need to.

    Schools don’t need zones, unless of course people live beside them and their tax dollars pay for it, and it’s be stupid to insist they travel far afield.

    Having an ambition that everyone else in life would live and do as I want them to so I have no responsibility or obligation to improve the world would work out great – if everyone lived as I wished them to. Only they don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. wikiriwhis business (3,302 comments) says:

    ‘I don’t think churches have ever been very good at teaching safe sexual practices. They tended to try and suppress one of our basic instincts through fear and punishment. Often unsuccessfully.’

    That’s because churches aren’t spiritual places where joy flourishes. Just centres that reinforce legalism and morality and basically soul destroying.

    Taste and see that the Lord is Good. Empowered is the man that trusteth in Him. Psalm 34

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    PG, You did not answer my question. Was that because you did not know the answer? You referred to teaching children safe sexual practices. Is it safe to have sex with someone who is HIV+ with or without a condom?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. dog_eat_dog (681 comments) says:

    Good to see the usual suspects trying to make this about abortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SPC (4,675 comments) says:

    Interesting, an opposition from DPF to values being part of sex education, effectively support for the existing regime continuing – either ignorance (none) or focus on condoms and fertility management.

    And largely supported by the more conservative posters, – all out of step with the general public.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    PG#

    The spreading of sexual diseases is not a matter of medicine but that of morality.

    Here’s the proof:

    We are already seeing the establishment of a government service here in Australia that’s aim is “to take away the shame of having sexual diseases” in young people. The proponants see this as being of benefit to the ‘mental health’ of young people!

    It’s nothing more than an acknowledgement that sex education in schools has FAILED.

    ‘Medicine’ such as condoms and ‘proper education of sexual activity’ and the actual medicine itself, hasn’t done anything to decrease sexual diseases in society. It’s infact helped increased the numbers due to young people seeing it as just being ‘part of the sexual experiance’. Ignorance until they get a disease.

    Morality is the prevention.

    Former Democrats leader Natassia Scott-Despoya is the spokes person. ‘Mental health’ funding ect is another of her pet hobby horses. She’s all crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    It’s different in that the article is promoting the institutional backup for all school children.

    Well that’s nonsense. I don’t think either that is what Craig meant, that would be incredibly stupid.

    You need sex ed for all children as a base, parents can and should supplement to that. How on earth are you going to determine which children need an institutional back up and which don’t?

    Again, there is no such thing as too much education.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. lolitasbrother (353 comments) says:

    Colin Craig quoted [ in body of DPF article]
    “Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said parents should be responsible for teaching kids about sexuality, but there needed to be an institutional backup if parents failed.”

    Transgressing, past the drivel of sunday sex.
    I just saw the biggest billboard ever in Christchurch, a massive panorama down the bottom of Barbados street
    It said
    ” Politicians that ignore the people stink.
    Conservative will introduce obligatory acceptance of public referenda. ”

    Good show , another siphon off, of votes to Winston

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    That’s because churches aren’t spiritual places where joy flourishes. Just centres that reinforce legalism and morality and basically soul destroying.

    I know plenty of people who think that that’s what they’re like, but then they never come along, so what would they know? Personally I’ve never been in a church that’s like that, but if I was, I think I’d leave it and go to another. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is normally unwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Steve (North Shore) (4,327 comments) says:

    Continuous rooting and reproduction by disfuntional drop kicks will keep increasing the Labour/Green/Mana/Moari voter base.
    That is why they will do nothing (parents and teachers)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..You need sex ed for all children as a base, parents can and should supplement to that. How on earth are you going to determine which children need an institutional back up and which don’t?………….Again, there is no such thing as too much education….”

    LOL…..more wisdom from the homosexualists.

    Firstly, you need parents for children as a BASE! They install wisdom and respect into children daily on a one to one basis. A very personal matter in pre-pubicent and ‘devolpment’ years. Parents to their children are a living example of sexuality. Teachers arn’t that close to children – and shouldn’t be for that matter. Teachers can only ever teach sexual development at arms length – not on a personal basis.

    The government needs to support parents teaching their children about sexual development – not de-base it by allowing it to be undermined by sexual ‘educationalists’.

    But then you knew that didn’t you Eszett!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. duggledog (1,117 comments) says:

    Women have sex to get married

    Men get married to have sex.

    Simplistic but still true to a degree (to start off with anyway). When one side of the partnership forgets what the deal was, or just can’t be bothered anymore that’s often the start of the problems.

    I.e, after children women sometimes just shut up shop except for special occasions; husband becomes frustrated and being simple creatures the urge is overwhelming. Other women who may have missed the boat are very good at spotting unhappily married men and pounce on them.

    And on the other side, how many guys stop complimenting their wives and don’t make them feel special anymore, become utter slobs who lie on the couch, fart and never do any housework?

    The traditional marriage service had it all in the vows, and you even did it in front of everyone so everyone understood it was a very big fucking deal. Now weddings are almost a charade with no sense of ceremony or gravitas. I’ve been to plenty where you could see the marriage ending on the wedding day. Luckily I married the perfect woman and although we’ve had our ups and downs I could easily say she is the best thing that ever happened to me!

    Kids ought to be told from the age of ten that their choice of life partner is possibly the most important decision of their lives. Over and over again.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    ‘I don’t think churches have ever been very good at teaching safe sexual practices. They tended to try and suppress one of our basic instincts through fear and punishment. Often unsuccessfully.’

    Everyone on earth struggles with their sexuality, sexual practices, and guilt – one way or another.

    And that is why the Catholic Church places Confession at the front of being Catholic – to remind he/she of their falleness as man – so he mends his ways and then does the right thing by those he/she is in a sexual relationship with, and the products of that sexual relationship – the children – the very people who will next re-generate society. Parenting is no place for sexual diseases and multiple partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    LOL…..more wisdom from the homosexualists.

    Really? You make up words and mention wisdom in the same sentence? And a LOL?
    Wow, talk about irony.

    Firstly, you need parents for children as a BASE! They install wisdom and respect into children daily on a one to one basis. A very personal matter in pre-pubicent and ‘devolpment’ years. Parents to their children are a living example of sexuality. Teachers arn’t that close to children – and shouldn’t be for that matter. Teachers can only ever teach sexual development at arms length – not on a personal basis.

    What utter rubbish. Teachers are meant to teach, that’s what they are there for.
    And precisely because they can teach at an arms length and not on a personal basis is why they can deliver good sex ed.

    “Living example of sexuality”? That sounds to me very much like the John Cleese scene in The Meaning of Life.

    You are the prime example why we need sex ed in the schools. A dangerous mixture of ignorance and idiocy.
    But you already suspected that, harry, didn’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..What utter rubbish. Teachers are meant to teach, that’s what they are there for.
    And precisely because they can teach at an arms length and not on a personal basis is why they can deliver good sex ed….”

    Idiot………..so called ‘good sex ed’ has done nothing more than increase the rates of disease and problems in youth.

    “Here are the rules” and the kids then go to it…..as they are now ‘educated’.

    Or in other words:

    If sex ‘education’ by teachers is so fucken good……… why are we then having this discussion Eszett……….kids have been ‘educated’ by teachers for 2 generations now!

    So why all the current problems Eszett?

    Epic fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. MrTips (134 comments) says:

    Pete George
    please supply the stats for rape and violence in marriage, and the same for out of marriage.

    Then your arguments might be worth considering.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t call this (or any exchange with you) discussion by any stretch of the imagination, Harry.
    You are merely having a wee little nonsensical and idiotic rant as you usually do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    So once again the usual parade of Godwhacks, backed by the religious crap that was rammed into their childlike minds, have convinced themselves that they & their Skydaddy are qualified to set the standards everyone else should live by.

    Their arrogance is unbelievable.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Eszett,

    Again, there is no such thing as too much education.

    Sure there is, it’s called “brainwashing”.

    I think Colin Craig’s problem is that he’s trying to appear moderate. From observing him in the last month, I think he believes in conservatism, because instinctually he knows it’s better than anything else, but he doesn’t have a strong idea of what it is. The man obviously needs help.

    Conservatism ends at “it’s the parent’s job”. There’s no, oh but if there’s a problem, of course the state has to step in. Nope. The state doesn’t step in. The state has caused enough problems already and needs to stick to what it is the state should be doing rather than what the parents should be doing.

    Ultimately, it’s not education that teaches men and women to respect each other, it’s seeing that respect in action with their own parents, and then in society. Do as I say, not as I do, is bound to fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. igm (879 comments) says:

    Sex education from some of society’s worst deviants . . . look at the statistics, even though the unions have covered many up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. dime (8,778 comments) says:

    mrtips – new zealand has a violence culture and a rape culture. im sure in PG’s eyes, 80% of married men have raped thier wives at some point.

    the guy is fucking loony tunes

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “….So once again the usual parade of Godwhacks, backed by the religious crap that was rammed into their childlike minds, have convinced themselves that they & their Skydaddy are qualified to set the standards everyone else should live by…..”

    Rampent sexual disease, abortion, barrenness, pornography, denigration of women and children, unfaithfulness, disrespect, sodomy, suicide – are not standards.

    They all exist in society but Religion does not spread them.

    They all need to be stopped and the state has failed miserably at trying to do so.

    Infact, with it’s ‘all on board the sexual society’ way of educating children about sex, has only increased the chances of children falling victim to disease, abortion ect.

    Morality, or making ‘very serious informed decisions’ – the near opposite of mere ‘choice’ – about sexual practices is what is needed to be installed into young people.

    The state cannot do that as ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusivness’ is what the state has cornered itself into; any sexual practise is good sexual practise UNLESS it breaks the LAW.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    ….”Rampent sexual disease, abortion, barrenness, pornography, denigration of women and children, unfaithfulness, disrespect, sodomy, suicide – are not standards. “….

    True & it would be of real concern if they were common anywhere outside of your fevered, Godaddled imagination. It is still possible, at least in the Wairarapa, to go to town without witnessing mass sodomy or fornication in the streets & it is my guess that the rest of NZ is much in the same boat.

    In an ideal world parents would take responsibility for bringing their offspring up to speed on matters sexual when required. The state only got involved because kids were falling pregnant or being conned by perverts because their useless bloody parents with their church instilled guilt about sex were avoiding the issues.

    Fumbled references to “down there”, storks, “the curse” & “you’ll find out when you’re married” didn’t cut the mustard in the 50′s & turning back time won’t help now.

    If your wretched kids have to endure ignorance about their bodies due to your religious beliefs that is regrettable but it is your right to bring them up as you see fit. You, Mr Craig & the rest of the Godfreaks do not however, have the right to condemn others to the same fate merely because they chose their parents unwisely.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Steve (North Shore) (4,327 comments) says:

    “any sexual practise is good sexual practise UNLESS it breaks the LAW.”

    Go for it Harry, masturbate til the cows come home. No need to confess, Church is closed until Jan 6th when we stop doing it and get to work.
    Except Len

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “….If your wretched kids have to endure ignorance about their bodies due to your religious beliefs that is regrettable…”

    You don’t really mean mine, as you know full well from my presence here that my children would all be fully informed.[except the 9yld].

    And that itself is the issue – children being ‘fully informed’. Or as you say ‘endure being ignorant about their body…’

    Children have emotional needs, and experiancing sex at a young age is an expeiance where their emotional needs will in all likelyhood – not be meet. Then on top of that, the girl may then have to face dealing with an abortion. Certainly an emotional matter.

    Abortion is apparently a ‘choice’ but siblings of the aborted -when told by mum as adults that she did in the past have an abortion- can also feel being victims of abortion as they have ‘lost’ their sibling.

    So do tell me …………..who is ‘fully informed’ by having sex education delivered by the state…..and who is left ignorant?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Lucia Maria (1,994 comments) says:

    Nasska,

    The state only got involved because kids were falling pregnant or being conned by perverts because their useless bloody parents with their church instilled guilt about sex were avoiding the issues.

    Wrong. The state got involved because it wants more power and one of the ways to do that is destroy the family. With any organisation, there is always the danger that it ceases to exist for it’s stated purpose and instead exists for it’s own sake. We see that with human beings and we see that with the Government.

    Destroy the family, destroy natural relations between men and women and you create problems, problems that the state needs to rectify, and thus increase it’s own reach and power.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    SteveNS#

    “any sexual practise is good sexual practise UNLESS it breaks the LAW.”

    I said that was the position the state had cornered itself into.

    A good example of that was Jones – the wanker. Wanking was his ‘sexuality’ – but all and sundry from the ‘sexual tolerant brigade’ did not come out and support his sexuality.

    They simply stood aside and watched people trash him for watching porn at the taxpayers expense.

    Homosexuality in political parties has more social acceptance than wanking – but why – it is not breaking the law to do so.

    If it is ok for MP’s not to publicly endorse, accept and support wanking, then the MP’S have no right saying that the public should support and accept homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria

    No organisation or bureaucracy will forgo any opportunity to increase its influence & power. Whether you wish to deny it or not there were more than a few parents in decades gone by who were woefully incompetent in informing their kids about ANYTHING to do with sex except that it was bad or yucky.

    Once sex ed classes was started it had to be pretty much a compulsory subject unless the parents expressly vetoed it. Given the diversity of NZ society there’s little scope to introduce morals as opposed to technical information.

    I doubt that the state has any definite policy to break up the family unit. In any case it would be redundant….the feminists beat them to it by years.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. RichardX (292 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,263 comments) says:
    December 30th, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    A good example of that was Jones – the wanker. Wanking was his ‘sexuality’ – but all and sundry from the ‘sexual tolerant brigade’ did not come out and support his sexuality.

    Nasska, above is yet another example of why it is pointless engaging with Harriet
    I thought he was intellectually dishonest
    Turns out he is an imbecile

    Harriet, Do you really think that Jones watched porn about wanking and this is what excited him because “Wanking was his ‘sexuality’”

    You really do have a simpletons view on life

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “….Destroy the family, destroy natural relations between men and women and you create problems, problems that the state needs to rectify, and thus increase it’s own reach and power….”

    Or as Mark Steyn put it Lucia:

    Destroying the founding piller of generational society, because a very small minority says it must be so, is not being liberal, it’s being illiberal. Nature abbhors a vaccume, and each time one occures, government is then the first to fill it. Where and what is then ‘society’?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……Harriet, Do you really think that Jones watched porn about wanking and this is what excited him because “Wanking was his ‘sexuality’”

    You really do have a simpletons view on life…..”

    A ‘predominant’ part then.

    That still doesn’t excuse them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    Harriet

    1) Nothing will ever shift me from the sincere belief that abortion is a woman’s right & her decision. It’s not yours, mine, the Pope’s or the woman’s existing/future children.

    2) Until every parent in the country demonstrates an ability to educate their children about sex in their own way & according to their own cultural/religious policies the state must step in via the schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    RichardX

    “Harriet” is probably the most screwed up person I’ve ever encountered when it comes to anything to do with sex. The repression he suffered as a child has given him a morbid fascination with homosexuality & those who differ from his straightjacketed norms.

    He does however, provide a reference point which demonstrates that the rest of us are completely sane. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    Richard X

    My understanding was that Jones bought a variety of porno dvds.

    And none of those were of him and his wife/partner.

    Wanking on his own that much -while viewing others than not himself and wife- must then be a ‘predominant’ part of his sexuality – as hetrosexual sexual actions [a male/female union] then figure less predominantly in his conscientiousness.

    “….Nasska, above is yet another example of why it is pointless engaging with Harriet
    I thought he was intellectually dishonest
    Turns out he is an imbecile…”

    Hardly.

    Anyone who buys as much porn as Jones is commonly known as a wanker. Just as I’d already said to the observant. Richard is not one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    ….”Anyone who buys as much porn as Jones is commonly known as a wanker”…..

    Amazing! God’s representative on KB even knows the threshold where buying X amount of porn (as opposed to Y or Z) defines a potential sinner as a irredeemable wanker & a profligate with his valuable seed.

    Is there no end to the knowledge we receive on these forums? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Steve (North Shore) (4,327 comments) says:

    Good diversion Harry, keep wanking.
    “any sexual practise is good sexual practise UNLESS it breaks the LAW”
    All these comments about masturbaiting are turning you on yes? Just blame someone else – they made you do it :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    That’s because churches aren’t spiritual places where joy flourishes. Just centres that reinforce legalism and morality and basically soul destroying.

    Taste and see that the Lord is Good. Empowered is the man that trusteth in Him. Psalm 34

    Have you even been to church in the 21st century? I have attended loads of churches over the course of my life including some of the bigger Anglican ones and quite frankly most of them have the opposite problem: they compromise morality because they think they’re being nice and buy into cultural myths about tolerance, and don’t make a strong enough stand on sin. I have never once encountered a church which fell into the category you’re describing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..2) Until every parent in the country demonstrates an ability to educate their children about sex in their own way & according to their own cultural/religious policies the state must step in via the schools…..”

    [1] So you admit -in your mind- that nearly all ‘negative sexual statistics’ are then true and must be halted?

    [2] Or do you just think sex education is needed because….um….well…..um….just because?

    Good. Vote for the Conservatives if you picked [1] :cool:

    And if you picked [2] – then you’ve wasted your time talking – as there will be no change in the stats because we have already had 2 generations who have been sexually educated by the state.

    Like anything else, getting children to act responsably is a matter of morality. No one will ever go to jail for lying to a 16yld girl by having told her that you ‘love her’ just so you can then have sex with her. She alone will bear nearly all the consequences.

    That’s what is at stake: Young girls, who in all probability want to become good mothers themselves one day – and those with ‘less baggage’ then make better mothers. Some young women do put off being mothers due to previous bad relationships. How is that fair?

    The state will not fully inform children about abortion and other matters as it then ‘stigmitises’ those in that position, or who later end up in that position. That’s the fault with state sexual education and why we still see such terrible results. Parents need to do the main job of sexual education and the state should MOSTLY be supporting that – not MOSTLY supporting schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    I’ll pick (2) Harriet but I’ll flesh it out a little. Anything is better than ignorance or factually incorrect information…..as I pointed out in my 7.35pm reply to Lucia Maria, it is impractical for schools to teach sex education with reference to morals, culture or religion. For better or worse we are a diverse society & our values, although different from those of our neighbours, are no more valid than theirs.

    So as a parent you can:

    1) Accept that the state/school is only going to provide technical information.

    2) Indoctrinate your unfortunate child with a religious mumbo-jumbo guilt trip of your choice to counter any imaginary heathen practises you think the school may have implanted.

    Problem solved!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    Aredhel777

    It’s not the churches or the Christianity that’s the problem……it’s the loopy bloody Christians who sit in the pews that give the whole circus a bad name. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    It’s not the churches or the Christianity that’s the problem……it’s the loopy bloody Christians who sit in the pews that give the whole circus a bad name. :)

    I already know that you don’t like Christians or the church, you’ve said that ad nauseam in your previous posts (although actually it’s our God you’re antagonistic towards.) I was responding to a specific criticism of Christianity, specifically that it is legalistic and soul destroying, which is utterly out of kilter with how 21st century churches really are.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    Yep….things really went to the dogs when they downplayed the smiting with that hippie loving Jesus stuff.

    The hellfire & brimstone approach puts bums on seats. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    nasska so can we all assume you’ll still be in full support in a few years when your nine year old grandson comes home and tells his parents that he learned how to suck someone’s cock today and your eight year old granddaughter comes home and tells her parents she learned how to have an orgasm today with a vibrator, because that’s what they’re going to be teaching them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Aredhel777 (271 comments) says:

    Nasska: I see no conflict between emphasising God’s love and emphasising God’s insistence that in our personal lives we conform to high standards (or else suffer the consequences.) Neither did Christ, if you would care to read the New Testament. We’re talking about the guy who described people as “snakes” and “vipers” and asked them how on earth they would “escape the fires of hell” (Matthew 23:33) and is simultaneously responsible for parables like the Good Samaritan and the Sermon on the Mount.

    Why not take hell seriously? Repent of your sins and your hardheartedness and turn around your life. God is infinite in mercy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    Sounds a little far fetched Reid….we brought up our eldest granddaughter from the time she was seven (now 22) & I admit that the frankness & even the technical knowledge she learned at school was a little hair raising. Most of it although, at primary school at least, was based around the “keeping yourself safe” theme.

    I’m not sure that society will accept much more than is taught at present.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “….Why not take hell seriously? Repent of your sins and your hardheartedness and turn around your life. God is infinite in mercy….”

    Yep. Walk in the light and not the darkness Nasska.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    ….” Repent of your sins”….

    But those of them I’m still capable of I still enjoy.

    No sale! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    I’m not sure that society will accept much more than is taught at present.

    But society doesn’t get to decide, nasska. It’s the old slice the elephant, foot in the door, give them an inch they’ll take a mile, routine. That’s why over the years since it started it’s been directed toward younger and ever younger children and become over the years more and more explicit. In a way that people don’t notice. Slice the elephant.

    It’s not being done to help people, it’s being done to change social mores. Because manipulating sexual mores is the easiest and most powerful way to corrupt and change the way people form bonds and relationships. And look around you and compare what young men and women are doing with themselves today that they weren’t doing even twenty years ago. That’s not an accident. It hasn’t just “happened,” it’s been designed to happen. Sex ed isn’t the only force operating that has “achieved” this “triumph” of human “fweedom” but it’s one of the major forces.

    And sure, I used a bit of hyperbole above, but not much. You wait, and watch what happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “….nasska so can we all assume you’ll still be in full support in a few years when your nine year old grandson comes home and tells his parents that he learned how to suck someone’s cock today….”

    They’ve already started on them – sodomy is now taught as being ‘anal sex’ – as though it is part of sex – like foreplay. Just another ‘choice’.

    And then they wonder why teenagers are ‘confused’ about their sexuality. Or girls feel demeaned because they find out later that they have been mislead and have been ‘sodomised’.

    They should instead keep children unconfused.

    Imagine telling your future inlaws that you just ‘anal sexed’ their daughter because she ‘choose’ to let you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    But those of them I’m still capable of I still enjoy. No sale!

    It’s not worth it mate.

    http://www.divinerevelations.info/mary_k_baxter_a_divine_revelation_of_hell.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    Reid

    You’ve expressed that theory before….I don’t completely doubt it but we’re talking very, very thin slices of Pachyderm Schnitzel if it is occurring at all. I’ll be watching.

    Re the head case’s visions of Hell. I could conjure up better fantasies than that & I’m not even a believer! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria (1,827 comments) says:
    December 30th, 2013 at 5:53 pm
    Eszett,

    Again, there is no such thing as too much education.

    Sure there is, it’s called “brainwashing”.

    Lucia, it is not surprising that you would consider education and knowledge detrimental and consider them “brainwashing”.
    After all knowledge and critical thinking are the biggest threats to your beliefs. Heaven forbid that someone would make up their own mind.

    It is cynical and ironic that you consider that “brainwashing”, because what you would like to do is keep your children isolated from any outside ideas. You are the very epitome of someone who wishes to brainwash children for the fear that they may think differently from you.

    Educating children is not brainwashing them. Allowing them to think for themselves free of predetermined guilt is the opposite of brainwashing.

    You are free to instil all your conservative values and beliefs on your children that you believe is right. No one can or should and I certainly wont object to that.

    But you don’t have the right to instil ignorance on your children just because you are afraid that they may reject what you believe in.

    Again, there is no such thing as too much education.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Reid (15,593 comments) says:

    we’re talking very, very thin slices of Pachyderm Schnitzel if it is occurring at all

    Cast your mind back to how people lived and thought in the 60′s then run it forward to the youngest generation today and try to predict how their relationships will work out and how their children will be brought up when they’re adults. And that’s only 3-4 generations mate. A sliver of time, but it’s changed out of sight.

    The world wars last century created two huge step-changes in the direction the evil ones wanted to take us, and like compliant little sheep, most people have just bleated along, but the rate of change has been increasing, which is why I suggested just those generations since the 60′s to compare. But that’s how it works, in the social engineering field. They work in generations – 20-25 years per. It takes three to make a change bed in but it’s like all marketing. You get the early adopters, you get the fast followers, then you get the bulk and then finally you get the slow resisters.

    Re the… visions of Hell.

    Read the whole thing. It won’t hurt.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..Educating children is not brainwashing them. Allowing them to think for themselves free of predetermined guilt is the opposite of brainwashing….”

    LOL…………raise a legitimate question about homosexuals and you are immediatly labeled a bigot, homophobe, intolerant……

    No one who teaches sex ed would say that sodomy takes place outside of the body as it is seen as being ‘demeaning’ to homosexuals.

    But it’s the truth.

    “……Again, there is no such thing as too much education….”

    By all means be homosexual if you wish Eszett………but please refrain from being part of an agenda who wants to MIS-EDUCATE children.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    Another nonsensical rant, Harry?

    We are talking sex ed and you just keep bringing up homosexuality?
    What’s with this obsession, Harry? Why keep bringing it up constantly and relentlessly?

    Have you not outgrown your anal phase yet? Your rants certainly suggest so.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Flyingkiwi9 (54 comments) says:

    Religion has swept straight through this thread.

    Face it; sex and marriage are no longer exclusive. We view sex in such a tight arsed PC fashion. Its natural and its fun. Lets loosen up a bit. Sure the Roast busters are idiots – but as someone said – its got no relation to sexual health. Its entirely related to them being disrespectful dickheads anyway.

    Schools don’t have a duty to teach morale code. Leave that to the churches and leave them to die a slow natural death. Humans and families can come up with their own morales and when they don’t fit into society (consent) then its time to lock em up. Easy peasy. If females want to consent to unsafe sex so be it. They can make their own decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Why be consistent? It’s not about morality this is an issue of safety and health, and psychological well-being.

    It seems we spend half our time complaining about irresponsible parenting contributing to unwanted pregnancy and promiscuity and the other half investing the remaining parents with God-like abilities to second-guess by which technological means are children are next going to experience abuse. The we argue that the existence of ‘responsible’ drinking is why it is ok for society to be ‘free’ to market as much and as often as it likes to any one, then get all hysterical when 12-year-olds get raped by 14 year olds and ask ‘Where were the parents?’ ‘Why are they able to get hold of so much booze?” I think the schools and the parents should be together on this where and when they can and educate our children where and when we can.

    I also think the government failed to exploit an opportunity to legislate and tighten alcohol laws this year – I can’t begin to imagine why they would want to put the social costs of alcohol-abuse in front of the ‘freedom’ to sell a consumer product, which if it were introduced today would possibly be considered a Class A substance. Hasn’t is killed more people than heroin and meth together?

    And yes, I do like to drink regularly and often and hope to teach my kids to be responsible about how they consume alcohol – it. Like sex – alcohol is here to stay, so I advocate for less hysterical finger-pointing, and more rational attitudes.

    It isn’t about protecting peoples’ ‘freedom’ to hurt themselves, it’s about arming our children with knowledge that they have the right to be safe, and knowledge about how to be so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.