How to blow an issue out of all proportions, Bush-style

[exatreide]

Bullshit.....oh so you have never looked at porn and you have never beat it?

[GUNWOUNDS]

No, I simply dont need it, if I wanted to I could, but its not needed.

Oh in your previous post you said your hormones were uncontrollable and that sexual stimulation was mandatory... so i dont really understand what your trying to say now.

[Acriku]

Ex is a god ;)

Anyways, hormones are controllable but it takes self-discipline, and preoccupation always helps. However, when one is weak in self-discipline other resorts are ventured...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ex is a god ;)

Anyways, hormones are controllable but it takes self-discipline, and preoccupation always helps. However, when one is weak in self-discipline other resorts are ventured...

hehe yes pre-occupation does help ... i guess Ex writes fan-fic all day hehe  ;)

[exatreide]

oh I just ment that I dont need to look at porn becouse I can get laid if I want to.... ;)

But abstinence isnt going to work...People have sex its just a matter of biology simply saying "dont have sex" is not going to counter tens of thousands of years of sex being driven into our brains, thats why human hormons act the way they do,

its best for species to mate when they are reletivly young and fit, this is ussaly right after sexual maturity kicks in, thats a reason teens have sex, becouse its built in.

Trying to change thousands of years of genetic reinforcement the media in a two hour course three times a week for 4 months really isnt going to do much. Teach sex ed and make sure kids have sex but know what they are doing, as a health concern(diseases, overpopulation ect)

Teens are going to have sex and nothing will change that no amount of "abstience courses" are going to change that, the best thing to do is make sure they know what their doing.

Of course I am Acriku.... ;)

[GUNWOUNDS]

oh I just ment that I dont need to look at porn becouse I can get laid if I want to.... ;)

I doubt your girl-friend is always on your beck and call for sex... whether it be a headache, her period, or stress, etc, and when she is unavailable you probably masturbate like any other guy.

Its understandable that you would be embarrassed to admit to doing it since you are young and masturbating is a stigma at that age.

[GUNWOUNDS]

But abstinence isnt going to work...People have sex its just a matter of biology simply saying "dont have sex" is not going to counter tens of thousands of years of sex being driven into our brains, thats why human hormons act the way they do,

its best for species to mate when they are reletivly young and fit, this is ussaly right after sexual maturity kicks in, thats a reason teens have sex, becouse its built in.

Trying to change thousands of years of genetic reinforcement the media in a two hour course three times a week for 4 months really isnt going to do much. Teach sex ed and make sure kids have sex but know what they are doing, as a health concern(diseases, overpopulation ect)

Teens are going to have sex and nothing will change that no amount of "abstience courses" are going to change that, the best thing to do is make sure they know what their doing.

So then you disagree with people who say men are higher than the beasts and should be able to control our carnal desires?

[GUNWOUNDS]

But abstinence isnt going to work...

I remember reading somewhere that it is possible to be truly abstinent all your life like a monk.... there is something called "NOCTURNAL EMISSION" ... i believe it is where your body releases stored up semen at night while you sleep if you have not had sex or masturbated in awhile.

[alchemi2]

Part of the problem with your arguement Guns is basic human curiosity, if we don't provide information, kids will find out for themselves by experimentation. Sex ed has changed dramatically over the years, as you said your parents answered all your questions so they gave you sex ed some parents feel unable to do this or are unable to due to a lack of education.

Explaining the real dangers of having sex and the possible ramifications is central to sex ed in England, this is more likely to encourage abstience that just saying dont do it.

This has been shown in other areas, Hard Drugs, smoking and drinking by educating kids to the dangers and consequences, you encourage them to make the right choice and if their gonna make the wrong choice then at least they may use precautions.

Lets face it Prohibition was a miserable failure at stopping drinking.

[ordos45]

Lets face it Prohibition was a miserable failure at stopping drinking.

Indeed, one major American magazine sent reporters out on the streets of major cities.  I believe the record was 5 seconds to find an alcoholic drink illegally.  But organized crime loved Prohibition.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Part of the problem with your arguement Guns is basic human curiosity, if we don't provide information, kids will find out for themselves by experimentation. Sex ed has changed dramatically over the years, as you said your parents answered all your questions so they gave you sex ed some parents feel unable to do this or are unable to due to a lack of education.

Explaining the real dangers of having sex and the possible ramifications is central to sex ed in England, this is more likely to encourage abstience that just saying dont do it.

This has been shown in other areas, Hard Drugs, smoking and drinking by educating kids to the dangers and consequences, you encourage them to make the right choice and if their gonna make the wrong choice then at least they may use precautions.

Lets face it Prohibition was a miserable failure at stopping drinking.

yes explaining the dangers is a good idea... its also good for drugs, alcohol, and smoking like you said....

However i have to say one thing about the alcohol and drugs and smoking... and that is get your kids to be athletic... if they get interested in running or football or soccer , etc, etc then they will value their lungs, body , etc, etc,  more and be less likely to want to use that stuff for fear of diminished performance.  Whereas if they are a fat putz that sits around playing nintendo then they wont care if the cigarette is killing their lungs

[GUNWOUNDS]

Lets face it Prohibition was a miserable failure at stopping drinking.

thats because alcohol is ok when used in moderation... it is ok so long as you use it responsibly... thats why prohibition failed....

However we shouldnt do the same with drugs..

[exatreide]

no not with crack, but you can with pot its noy physicaly adicting like cola or crack.

[ordos45]

Some Cannabis withdraw symptoms courtesy of www.erowid.com

WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS

mild to moderate, non life-threatening withdrawal symptoms occur after daily use in some users. These may last for 1-6 weeks after cessation of use and can include anxiety, anhedonia (reduced experience of pleasure), headaches, general unease/discomfort, difficulty sleeping, and a desire to smoke pot. Severity of symptoms is related to frequency of use and individual sensitivity.

slight loss of appetite

finding non-stoned life a bit dull, increased boredom

[GUNWOUNDS]

Some Cannabis withdraw symptoms courtesy of www.erowid.com

wow .. that sucks... oh well i never

[exatreide]

never experienced any of that when i quit for a month becouse of probation, it was just there and then it wasnt, simple as that the bigest problem is keeping yourself from doing it, staying home and away from the enviriment is the best thing to do and its really easy to quit, withdrawl symptons are a peice of cake. And this was when I was smokin atleast a blunt or two every one or two days.

Candy is dandy but liqour is quicker, I really dont see any problem in alcohal in moderateration...Here is a little colloge I made when I was bored.(my fav brands prety much the only thing i will drink)

As you can see...Im pro sex...Pro Cannibus...Pro Alcohal(in moderation)

Im liberal. ;)[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

[nemafakei]

"If that's what you think of teenagers"

I'm sure there are many sensible teenagers out there who wouldn't get themselves into this sort of business. Informed or not, I trust them to be reasonable about such things in any case, and that was not the group with which I was dealing.

But my point was within every generation, there is a section who are inevitably going to end up louts: drunk, high, etc. These qualities (presumably for social reasons) tend to coincide more with scholastic underperformance, lack of attention in class, or behavioural problems resulting in learning difficulties. There will also be another section who are prone to slip into such a degenerate circle.

While not in full control of their faculties, they will not recall the subtleties of what they have learnt. If they given the opportunity to think that instruction in such matters is tantamount to condoning it, then the message that those who are already liable to take liberties will foremost take away is that it's normal to engage in such activities at the age of 18/16/14/12/10 or whatever it is being suggested, and not the instruction that is presumably the aim of the programme.

We cannot allow either of these sections to think that it's ok to embark on indecent acts. If we begin by instilling into them that such behaviour is wrong, then they will more instinctively shrink from it, even when intoxicated: 'Don't' is the message they will most likely best remember (at which point, whether or not they know how to do it becomes irrelevant). The focus must first and foremost be upon that issue.

I'm not stereotyping all teenagers, I'm merely reminding you that a significant proportion (About a third here, as I recall) of them use (at some point at least, and some for more prolonged periods) illegal drugs - in addition to however much alcohol it is they consume annually.

Secondary to this, there is no reason why the young cannot, at about 15 or so, be informed about the required precautionary measures to prevent the spread of disease, and so on, so long as it is clear throughout that this information is intended for use later on in life, when they have had the time and the clarity of thought, to form a relationship in which it might be permissible to use this information.

[TMA_1]

pot addiction is largely psychological, which is horrible, but isnt as taxing as say morphine withdrawls... horrible feeling.

If you smoke pot occasionally though it never does that, and I know that from friends and experiance. Though it isnt good to do, because it is illegal here in america for the majority of people, and technically it is illegal federally. Also it just isnt worth it in the end.

[alchemi2]

Nema so what your basicly saying is that the majority shouldn't be informed and educated becuase the minority will abuse that knowledge or pay no heed to it, this of cause being the same minority that ignore rules and perform illegal acts anyway either due to ignorance or lack of social skills.

sounds like they would ignore the DON'T DO IT rule anyway IMO so why not give the majority the benifit of knowledge that can protect and keep them safe.

Guns that a very hypocritical attitude bet you think girls are slags and boys are studs as well ;)

[SurlyPIG]

i NEVER said that the porn should or would be used to "educate" the kids.... i said i would rather have them use it to relieve their pent up sexual frustration instead of banging each other.

I understand what you meant, I'm saying that if you think these people are dumb enough to misinterpret the professionally-delivered message of sex ed, don't you think they'd form similar dumb conclusions from porn?

But my point was within every generation, there is a section who are inevitably going to end up louts: drunk, high, etc. These qualities (presumably for social reasons) tend to coincide more with scholastic underperformance, lack of attention in class, or behavioural problems resulting in learning difficulties. There will also be another section who are prone to slip into such a degenerate circle.

That's the most agreeable thing you've said thus far, but your presumption addresses only the lesser half of the problem.  I think it's naive and a little lazy to believe that people only engage in self-destructive because it's socially expected.

I believe that people only ever engage in self-destructive behaviour, which includes the abuse of things like alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, driving fast, eating red meat etc. because it is a means to escape from whatever undesireable situation they are in.  I think, for the most part, people who destroy their lives by abusing something (whether it's a drug or a behaviour - even exercise can be self-destructive for an anorexic) are not fine to start off with and are then destroyed by whatever behaviour they indulge in, I think their abuse of that behaviour is a means of expressing or escaping a greater personal problem.  For someone with an unstable home, the means of escape could be abusing alcohol, drugs, or sex.  For someone unstable enough as to be suicidal or careless with their life, this could be hard drugs or unprotected sex with a stranger.  There is often crossover of probelms and behaviours too.  Someone with a self-confidence problem, or the human need for acceptance going unfullfilled could do whatever behaviour they identify with being accpted - in other words, the type that would do "bad stuff" because "the in-crowd is doing it."  And like I said, anything can be abused, whether it's anorexics with a confusion between self-image and body-image abusing exercise, or obsessive-compulsives washing away feelings of inadequacy by cleaning.

While not in full control of their faculties, they will not recall the subtleties of what they have learnt. If they given the opportunity to think that instruction in such matters is tantamount to condoning it, then the message that those who are already liable to take liberties will foremost take away is that it's normal to engage in such activities at the age of 18/16/14/12/10 or whatever it is being suggested, and not the instruction that is presumably the aim of the programme.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say you're against here.  Are you saying that you think teens won't be able to remember how to practice safe sex when they're drunk/high, or that they won't remember the distinction that what they were taught was advocated only in place of unprotected sex?  If the former, I defy you to find an example that supports the idea.  If the latter, excuse the sarcasm, but my God!  :O The thought of people having responsible, protected sex...it's just so unbearable! ;D  Ahem...sorry, but I just don't see it as that big of deal.  In fact, I would see that as a sign the sex ed worked.  I think we have an unresolvable difference of opinion.  You seem to have a functional, authoritarian view on sex, I have a more tolerant, libertarian opinion on the matter.  Frankly, I can't see your position as more logical, but I respect your opinion.

We cannot allow either of these sections to think that it's ok to embark on indecent acts. If we begin by instilling into them that such behaviour is wrong, then they will more instinctively shrink from it, even when intoxicated: 'Don't' is the message they will most likely best remember (at which point, whether or not they know how to do it becomes irrelevant). The focus must first and foremost be upon that issue.

I agree completely.  And it is.  I belive I said so in the last part of my previous post.  It is always said that mixing protected sex with alcohol/drug abuse is a recipe for disaster, as you become less able to use it properly when your state of consciousness is altered.  However, this is sometimes a mute point, because, physiologically, males cannot achieve an erection when they're pissed drunk, although I'm not sure about other drugs.

I'm not stereotyping all teenagers, I'm merely reminding you that a significant proportion (About a third here, as I recall) of them use (at some point at least, and some for more prolonged periods) illegal drugs - in addition to however much alcohol it is they consume annually.

Fair enough, but naturally I would like to remind you that this doesn't mean they abuse them to an extreme where they are stoned out of their mind, and also that there isn't a solid correlation between drug use and sex.

[nemafakei]

"Are you saying that you think teens won't be able to remember how to practice safe sex when they're drunk/high, or that they won't remember the distinction that what they were taught was advocated only in place of unprotected sex?"

I'm saying that they almost certainly won't remember the distinction, so will be all the more ready to engage in such activities.

I'm saying that they may well not recall the health and safety details either, but there's no way that can be proven or disproven with clear statistics, so I'll not labour the point. My reasoning for this is that the people in the aforementioned sections of the population are less likely to be paying attention to health and safety details, and more to other things - and the message they may well remember is "We're being taught how to do this, so it's OK, really."

"The thought of people having responsible, protected sex...it's just so unbearable!"

I don't know what you mean by responsible, but if I said responsible in that context, it would mean 'with a partner to whom the person in question was married or in a  similar form of partnership'. In which case, fine. But otherwise, not only is the thought perturbing concerning the state of teenage society, but also concerning the value of anything later in life.

"Nema so what your basicly saying is that the majority shouldn't be informed and educated becuase the minority will abuse that knowledge or pay no heed to it, this of cause being the same minority that ignore rules and perform illegal acts anyway either due to ignorance or lack of social skills."

I say that the majority should be informed of the caveat primarily (and they will heed that, in which case the safety question is irrelevant, because they won't be performing anything unsafe in the first instance). The minority, who may break the rules anyway, need to know that it is morally unacceptable, that the punishment is servere, etc.

(Remember: I'm not proposing a total ban on information)

"sounds like they would ignore the DON'T DO IT rule anyway IMO so why not give the majority the benifit of knowledge that can protect and keep them safe"

But what are we keeping the majority safe from if they obey the rule?

My stance is that unless some priority is given to ensuring there is a pervasive recognition within the young population (i.e. by teaching this message in various ways) that abstaining is by far the better option, teenagers will do unacceptable things.

Why authoritarian over libertarian in this case and others? Well, I take Socrates' line: We should rise above physical pleasures and pandering to our emotions and irrational, animal urges. We should instead seek to understand, for if we are to acheive anything, we must aim for more than just short term gain. (That's quite compact- read between the lines on that last sentence). Much as I would like to be liberal, frankly, humanity can't be trusted to get on and work happily for a common good, they're mostly too busy serving their own interests.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why authoritarian over libertarian in this case and others? Well, I take Socrates' line: We should rise above physical pleasures and pandering to our emotions and irrational, animal urges. We should instead seek to understand, for if we are to acheive anything, we must aim for more than just short term gain. (That's quite compact- read between the lines on that last sentence). Much as I would like to be liberal, frankly, humanity can't be trusted to get on and work happily for a common good, they're mostly too busy serving their own interests.

very nice tidbit there nema.. i got to write that one down..

[SurlyPIG]

Back to a discussion that's actually going somewhere...

I'm saying that they almost certainly won't remember the distinction, so will be all the more ready to engage in such activities.

I'm saying that they may well not recall the health and safety details either, but there's no way that can be proven or disproven with clear statistics, so I'll not labour the point. My reasoning for this is that the people in the aforementioned sections of the population are less likely to be paying attention to health and safety details, and more to other things - and the message they may well remember is "We're being taught how to do this, so it's OK, really."

On what grounds do you assert that those who are considering using what's being taught are less likely to listen to what they're being told?  It doesn't make sense to me that they wouldn't pay attention to that.  Not to do so would be idiocy.  Students listen the most when they have interest in what's being said, not vice versa.  As to whether or not they'll jumble the intent of what's being taught, well, I see what you mean, and I see how it could happen, though not all the time and certainly not with every individual, but isn't it better than the alternative? (the alternative being teens having no knowledge other than what pop culture tells them)

I don't know what you mean by responsible, but if I said responsible in that context, it would mean 'with a partner to whom the person in question was married or in a  similar form of partnership'. In which case, fine. But otherwise, not only is the thought perturbing concerning the state of teenage society, but also concerning the value of anything later in life.

Well, I simply disagree with the latter part of what you said, but as to what I said earlier, I meant responsible as in knowledgeable and actively conscientious of their actions as it pertains to their goals, their purpose, and obligations.

Why authoritarian over libertarian in this case and others? Well, I take Socrates' line: We should rise above physical pleasures and pandering to our emotions and irrational, animal urges. We should instead seek to understand, for if we are to acheive anything, we must aim for more than just short term gain. (That's quite compact- read between the lines on that last sentence). Much as I would like to be liberal, frankly, humanity can't be trusted to get on and work happily for a common good, they're mostly too busy serving their own interests.

Surely you realise that any act, be it judged good or bad, can be identified as pandering to a primitive emotion of some sort.  I remember having a discussion with Phage about this once...He would explain it far better than I.  Could not working toward a common good be seen merely as a misidentified extension of the "herd animal" instinct?  Could not deeds of generosity and kindness be viewed as pandering to our emotions of empathy?

We are emotional creatures my friend, and while I don't believe we should pander the original bio-evolutionary purpose of our emotions if our reasoning tells us it's unwise to do so, I think that supressing different parts of ourselves isn't condusive with a long, healthy, worthwhile life.  When our feelings go unexpressed it can take quite a toll not only on our emotional health but our physical and mental health too.  We aren't not robots, and we aren't Vulcans either.  We have to accept who we are and learn to live with it in ways that fit our goals and morals before we can move beyond our present boundaries.