What About the Other Kids?:
Yet another look at the extremely sad state of post-Catholic abstinence education.
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
31 comments:
I didn't understand everything I read but what I did get out of it is that guilt/sin and forgiveness are not appropriate topics for a sex education course. I think a secular course has to be amoral and it is up to the parents to discuss morality with their children.
I would disagree- forgiveness is a NECESSARY part of sex ed.
But of course, without guilt/sin and forgiveness, sex ed is perfectly correct for funneling women into sexual slavery, which, after all, is the real purpose- that's why sex ed courses concentrate on destroying their fertility.
Funneling women into sexual slavery?
Is that what we do when we remove guilt/sin from sex?
Sex in itself is not bad. Safe sex is better than unprotected sex. Sex education should teach safe sex in a non-judgmental manner. It has nothing to do with sexual slavery. Morality should be discussed in a different venue.
Yep, that's EXACTLY what you do when you remove the guilt and sin from sex for the MALES of the species, who are bigger and stronger.
"Safe sex" is just another word for "forced sex".
So, to you, safe sex is rape. That's pretty screwed up, Ted.
Actually, it is more that I know, from experimentation and study, that safe sex simply isn't safe. It is instead simply using another human being to satisfy lust, with no intention of love or care of the other person at all. And that situation is never safe- it is instead the seeds of abuse.
" It is instead simply using another human being to satisfy lust "
Ted,
If two people mutually enjoy having safe sex, then who is being used? You just can't universally condemn all sexual activity by all people with the sole exception of between a married man and his wife not using contraception. Well, YOU can, and the Church can, but it doesn't mean anything.
"If two people mutually enjoy having safe sex, then who is being used?"
Both of them, in the rather rare instance this occurs.
"You just can't universally condemn all sexual activity by all people with the sole exception of between a married man and his wife not using contraception. Well, YOU can, and the Church can, but it doesn't mean anything."
It is fact based sex-ed to do so. Anything less is lying to children.
"It is fact based sex-ed to do so. Anything less is lying to children."
So, you expect sex education to just cover sex between a husband and a wife without contraception? That won't take very long.
I expect sex ed to include the FULL version of sex done right, which should include in addition to the basic biology, charting and temperature, lamaze, parenting, home economics, bookkeeping, pre marital counseling for couples that are "serious" enough to want sex, and ideally, a work-study program that pays a living wage so that teenage fathers don't abandon their families.
After all, sex done wrong (contracepted) only takes a few minutes. Sex done right takes 18 years, minimum.
Oh, and add to that free prenatal and gynecology for the women, as well as housing and an expansion of WIC to cover all women, not just needs testing.
The things you want such as the sex education as you describe it are way beyond your reach. It must be frustrating to view the world through your eyes. It's all sin. How can you enjoy life in a world so corrupt and sinful?
By creating a local world that isn't. And by working hard to free my world from the corruption around me.
About half of this was available when I was in high school, it isn't any longer. But private parties are stepping up- my council just raised $987 for the local Mother & Child center that provides *ALL* of this, to anybody who comes in their door, except for the WIC.
The real trick though is to show how misogynistic the people OPPOSING pregnancy and women really are.
"The real trick though is to show how misogynistic the people OPPOSING pregnancy and women really are."
Yeah. That does seem to be a challenge, showing that gay marriage, contraception and abortion rights are somehow against women. I don't see it.
Only because you're so far down the rabbit hole that you don't understand that when you take away motherhood and turn women into men you've oppressed them far more than any bored housewife syndrome ever could.
There is a reason that at a time women were unable to work in any other field, they were school teachers.
"There is a reason that at a time women were unable to work in any other field, they were school teachers."
I'm not going near that one. That has "male chauvinism" written all over it.
How does admitting women are *better than men* at taking care of children become male chauvinism? Rather misogynistic just suggesting that to me.
You're right. I took your comment about women being school teachers the wrong way. My bad.
The reason they could ONLY be school teachers was indeed misogynistic male chauvinism; but the reason they were still allowed to be school teachers was because even the worst male chauvinist could see that there was something women were better at than men.
I agree with you completely. I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend :-).
The converse is also true of course- stereotypical male behavior also includes methods of teaching lessons to children that are unique to that gender.
The rather politically incorrect comedian Carlos Mencia put it best. He told the story of a young child playing in the kitchen. Mommy says "don't touch the hot oven", as many times as necessary, and never tires of the warning. She leaves the room. The kid tries to touch the oven again. Daddy says, "don't touch the hot oven". After a few minutes of playing, curiosity gets the best of the kid, and he tries to touch it again. Daddy says "go ahead and touch the oven, it's hot"- the kid touches the oven and gets a slight burn. Next thing you know, mommy comes back into the room, and the kid is standing up on a stool because daddy says "the floor is hot". Daddy proudly proclaims to Mommy "I taught him what hot means!
I had nuns through the eighth grade and priests, brothers and laymen through highschool. I liked the men better.
I'm amazed by some of the nun stories I've heard. I went to a public school that was 80% German Apostolic Christian, 20% Lutheran, 10% Catholic. In 8 years of grade school, I only had two male teachers, one of whom was really awesome, the other not so much. The awesome one rode a motorcycle, carried a samurai sword to class, brought his home computer and an HP calculator in for us smart geeks, showed us how to make meal worms break dance, and encouraged rocketry and building bridges out of paper as hobbies.
The not so good one taught so much to his lesson plan that I could read ahead (upsidedown) when I was at his desk and have all the assigned work for the week done by Monday Afternoon.
The women always confused me at that age; I never could understand where they were coming from (I now know this was the asperger's).
The Salesian brothers were the best teachers I ever had. We had one who couldn't say aluminum. Now how many time would you think someone would have to say that word? But he taught chemistry and for some unknown reason had to say it more often than he wanted to. He called it alunimum. Funny the things you remember. One day in religion we drilled the brother about sex. We couldn't believe what he was saying that any sex that doesn't result in the sperm entering the vagina was sinful. I guess I still have a problem with that in disputing the Church's stand on contraception and homosexuality.
The very odd thing is that the sin in sex is NOT about procreation, it's about intention. Lusting after that teenage girl walking by in a miniskirt is just as much a sin against chastity as selling your body to a gay man in a random bar.
And it all comes back to dignity of the individual.
Procreation is dignified. It is the process by which a child becomes a parent.
Lust for the sake of lust is undignified- both for the lustful, who have lost control to animalistic emotion- and the intended- who has become an object instead of a person.
Even for a heterosexual couple- having sex when not intending to have children is lying to your body and to your partner's body- an extreme schizophrenic disconnect between what your reproductive system is trying to do and what your mind intends.
Contraception and homosexuality encourage lust instead of love- and thus, a loss of dignity. Far better to just be celibate than either of those.
"Contraception and homosexuality encourage lust instead of love- and thus, a loss of dignity. Far better to just be celibate than either of those."
There can be love between people using contraception and people of the same. It's not up to you to rule on whether a relationship is based on love or lust. Plus, not everyone recognizes lust and sin.
Love exists to become physical reality and you have to give that love a name and spend another 18-35 years raising it into a successful adult.
Contraception is designed *specifically* to defeat that type of love.
"Love exists to become physical reality and you have to give that love a name and spend another 18-35 years raising it into a successful adult."
And people who don't have children can't experience love?
Not Storge, no. Storge requires children, ideally natural children.
Ideally, as the Greeks discovered, love comes in four flavors, not one.
We're not talking about the ideal.
The ideal cannot be imposed on people.
That doesn't mean we can't encourage the ideal, and discourage everything else. And we should.
Post a Comment