• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Gross Art part 2

Judith

Well-known member
We had a woman out here on the west coast put used tampons and pads under glass and call it some glory to women thingy. The shocking part of it all was that my sons school was going to see the gallery!!! Needless to say I refused to sign the permission slip and kept him home that day. I won't let him see the film on masterbation either. Like boys can't figure that out on there own.( keep in mind he is 10) sheesh...GROSSS! Call me old fashioned if you want somethings are just vile!!! Be very careful to actually read permission slips !!!!!
 

Cal

Well-known member
Question for both of you; how many other parents had the good sense to make sure their kids were excluded from these activities/curriculum?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Red Robin said:
reader (the Second) said:
Family Life has lowered the rate of teenage pregnancy in my town.
How do you know?

That's empirical -- there are statistics. Now you can ask what else changed but the most apparent change was the introduction of family life classes...
Do you know whether the abortion rate increased or decreased? To me it's not exactly empirical without a double blind study or certainly not empirical without at least all the evidence available considered. I'd say it's true to you because that is the statement made by those that are in favor of the family life class. Have you herd the arguments made for the decrease in pregnancy from those that would be against the class?
 

Judith

Well-known member
Hi Cal,
In my son's class I was the only parent with enough sense to say no to the art exhibit and the film. Let me tell you that I had LOTS of new age parents try to talk sense into me. How on earth is my son supposed to have opinions and veiws on things when he is not allowed to do as his classmates do. My standard answer is "another childhood trauma brought to you by mom" When the time is right, Brax and I will have "the talk" as it should be, his PARENT ,educating him about private matters.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Cal said:
Question for both of you; how many other parents had the good sense to make sure their kids were excluded from these activities/curriculum?

Family Life has lowered the rate of teenage pregnancy in my town. As a middle class parent who sent their children to a private parochial school, I wanted the values teaching in our hands - their dad and me. But I can't argue with lowered teenage pregnancy since it lowers our taxes, lowers our criminal and prison rates, etc.

It's a Catch-22 in towns like mine.

I don't know that Family Life harmed any kids, I found it heavy handed and embarrassing and mostly a waste of my kids' valuable time.
After thinking about your evaluation R2 I also wonder how the clymidia rate along with other STD's either increased or decreased? When you say
(they call it family life, I call it desensitization to preconcieved morality) didn't hurt the kids , I'd disagree if the STD rate in your area went up.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Red Robin - STDs are NOT up. One of the trends I have noticed is widespread use of condoms among the youth, because of knowledge of STDs and how prevalent and dangerous they are. This is due to the types of sex education and available clinics these kids have had access to, and while this will likely rile you, I am very thankful that safer sex is being practiced. From what I have been told, the prevalence of STDs and unnoticeable (silent) STDs is high and anything that lowers it is good. Unlike you, I don't think that kids that get married at 30 are in any way going to put off sex until 30, nor do I think they should. Unless we want our kids to marry at 19, your approach offers little to society in terms of cutting down pregnancy and STDs.
What is my approach and why are you against it?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
And hiding one's head in the sand leads to (1) abortions; (2) teenage pregnancies; (3) failed young marriages; (4) STDs including HIV. And indirectly to higher prison populations and crime.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth either but if you suggest abstinence equates to putting ones head in the sand you're silly. Abstinence is on the rise is a bigger contributing factor to unwanted teen pregnancy than condoms. You are the one behind the curve and can't let go of the bra burning era you grew up in. Get with the times.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS06B01

Two studies indicate that abstinence has contributed to the decline in unwed teen birthrates, which declined 24 percent between 1994 and 2003 in the United States. A 2003 study found that the increase in the number of abstinent teens accounted for most of the decline in unwed teen births and 67 percent of the decline in out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies from 1991 to 1995.[6] A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found that both abstinence and contraception contributed to the decline in teen pregnancy rates between 1991 and 2001. The study attributes 53 percent of the decline in teen pregnancy rates among 15- to 17-year-olds to abstinence and 47 percent to contraceptive use.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
We were talking about 15 to 17 year olds remember...

You said..
Family Life has lowered the rate of teenage pregnancy in my town.

You have asked too many questions at once and they are way too open ended..If you are asking do I think it is proper for people to practice abstinence at 30? the answer is yes.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
And hiding one's head in the sand leads to (1) abortions; (2) teenage pregnancies; (3) failed young marriages; (4) STDs including HIV. And indirectly to higher prison populations and crime.
Abstinence is 100% effective for 3 of you 4 problems listed and will decrease the likely hood of failed young marriages drastically. How does your sex ed class compare?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Red Robin said:
reader (the Second) said:
And hiding one's head in the sand leads to (1) abortions; (2) teenage pregnancies; (3) failed young marriages; (4) STDs including HIV. And indirectly to higher prison populations and crime.
Abstinence is 100% effective for 3 of you 4 problems listed and will decrease the likely hood of failed young marriages drastically. How does your sex ed class compare?

You still haven't answered my questions.

Do you believe in early marriage?

If not early marriage, what is your suggestion -- abstinence until marriage under all conditions?

Remember I have close family who believes in men and women being separated and being married early, with no premarital sex so I have firsthand observation of how that works (not so badly by the way, but every once in a while it leads to BIG mistakes).

I just don't believe that advocating abstinence while opposing birth control will solve the STD / teen pregnancy issues.

And I don't believe in abstinence for those "normal" adults who don't marry early.
I absolutely love early marriages. My wife and I were young and I only wish we'd married younger where I could have spent more time married. If we both live to be a hundred the time spent will be too short.

What right do you have to call those who marry at a later age NORMAL?? More leftist , elitist propaganda.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
But don't young marriages tend to end in divorce? If we communicate to young people that we think they're inherently incompetent that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it was not always the case. In fact, in the days when people married younger, divorce was much rarer. During the last half of the 20th century, as brides' age rose from 20 to 25, the divorce rate doubled. The trend toward older, and presumptively more mature, couples didn't result in stronger marriages. Marital durability has more to do with the expectations and support of surrounding society than with the partners' age.

A pattern of late marriage may actually increase the rate of divorce. During that initial decade of physical adulthood, young people may not be getting married, but they're still falling in love. They fall in love, and break up, and undergo terrible pain, but find that with time they get over it. They may do this many times. Gradually, they get used to it; they learn that they can give their hearts away, and take them back again; they learn to shield their hearts from access in the first place. They learn to approach a relationship with the goal of getting what they want, and keep their bags packed by the door. By the time they marry they may have had many opportunities to learn how to walk away from a promise. They've been training for divorce.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mathewes-green092002.asp
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Red Robin said:
reader (the Second) said:
You still haven't answered my questions.

Do you believe in early marriage?

If not early marriage, what is your suggestion -- abstinence until marriage under all conditions?

Remember I have close family who believes in men and women being separated and being married early, with no premarital sex so I have firsthand observation of how that works (not so badly by the way, but every once in a while it leads to BIG mistakes).

I just don't believe that advocating abstinence while opposing birth control will solve the STD / teen pregnancy issues.

And I don't believe in abstinence for those "normal" adults who don't marry early.
I absolutely love early marriages. My wife and I were young and I only wish we'd married younger where I could have spent more time married. If we both live to be a hundred the time spent will be too short.

What right do you have to call those who marry at a later age NORMAL?? More leftist , elitist propaganda.


RR - I put quotes around "normal" which indicates that I didn't mean normal at all...

I am not against young marriage, quite the opposite. I am against getting married for the wrong reason and having a failed marriage.

I am also against decreeing that abstinence is the universal anidote.
I didn't realize that we were debating the qualifications of a good decree. Rather I thought we were debating the value of (family life) class and the merits of same. You choose what you prefer, I'll do the same. My way works best.
 

Steve

Well-known member
R2:
But this is more about what is wrong with our society, less about abstinence

how can one debate about what is wrong when you remove one of the Qualities that made it right?


when our society teaches it's children they can have the most precious gifts with out responsibilities, are we not saying you can have every thing with out consequences...?
 

MsSage

Well-known member
I have read the "family life" material that is taught in the schools in Charlotte. They start in 3rd grade. They dont get into birth control untill 5th grade and they do teach abstinence as well as what you can do to "prevent" LOL sorry its a joke. My daughter KNOWS the facts of life and yes I let her take the class in 3-5th grades. It gave us topics to talk about and compare them to what her father and I believe and what is on TV and in the schools. She also KNOWS she HAS to finish college before getting married and having children. NO EXCUSSES. As for sex before marriage she knows I do NOT approve. Yes she is only 11 but she also knows about the 3 girls who entered 6th grade pregnante. The last one was in her 2nd & 3rd grade class.
This is an issue dealing with parental invovlment NOT what or HOW the schools teach sex ed.
These kids in the intercity are starving for attention...they want to be loved and feel safe. So the girls hang out with the older boys and think they "HAVE" to do what they want to keep them.
We have taught these kids that they or anything that gets in our way of feeling good or makes us feel unpleasant we can get rid of it. INCLUDING an unborn child. We have take the vaule of life and made it conditional to what is "right" for me now.
You want teenage pregnacys to drop? You have to get the value of life back to non negotiable. Every life is important.
Maybe I see things different coming from a big city but trust me its making its way to the small towns.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
reader I can't help but notice that it's two men, me and Steve that are arguing the merits of virginity against you , a female. Odd. I guess you've come a long way baby.
 

Cal

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Cal said:
Question for both of you; how many other parents had the good sense to make sure their kids were excluded from these activities/curriculum?

Family Life has lowered the rate of teenage pregnancy in my town. As a middle class parent who sent their children to a private parochial school, I wanted the values teaching in our hands - their dad and me. But I can't argue with lowered teenage pregnancy since it lowers our taxes, lowers our criminal and prison rates, etc.

It's a Catch-22 in towns like mine.

I don't know that Family Life harmed any kids, I found it heavy handed and embarrassing and mostly a waste of my kids' valuable time.
I think, judging by your initial commment, that indeed, some children must have been harmed IMO. I would think that teen pregnancy rates could be reduced without subjecting children to this filth:

You should have seen the 3 examples of outrageous things they did in my daughter's classes early when she had family life on a parttime bases in 4th or 5th grade and 6th grade. Such poor show of judgement I have never seen. They taught totally non age appropriate subjects (male homosexual activities taught at 9; asked to describe her first kiss at 11; given a young adult pamphlet on pre-marital sex at 11 discussing why people choose or don't choose to have pre-marital sex and aimed at about an 18 year old level) and failed to teach basics like menstruation
 

Cal

Well-known member
Judith said:
Hi Cal,
In my son's class I was the only parent with enough sense to say no to the art exhibit and the film. Let me tell you that I had LOTS of new age parents try to talk sense into me. How on earth is my son supposed to have opinions and veiws on things when he is not allowed to do as his classmates do. My standard answer is "another childhood trauma brought to you by mom" When the time is right, Brax and I will have "the talk" as it should be, his PARENT ,educating him about private matters.
Great job Judith! All of us pain-in-the-ass fuddy duddies have to support each other...kudos!
 

Latest posts

Top