Teenage mums: are schools to blame?

AdamW said:
I think Section 28 is unrelated to this. As I understood it, S28 simply made schools unable to promote homosexuality as a married-with-kids-style relationship.

Section 28 stopped openness and honesty in relation to sexual health discussion. Because like it or not sexual diversity is part of our culture - and there are gay people who are living a married-with-kids-style relationships - thats life!
How can you talk about sexual health and relationship issues without including discussion about different/alternative kinds of relationships, sexuality etc? This of course need to be done in an appropriate and sensitive manner.

I have a colleague who tries to encourage the schools to be more proactive regarding sex and relationship education (this is her job) but she finds that the schools are just as reluctant now as when section 28 was in place.
 
Sponsored Links
AdamW said:
Proof that the human race is devolving.

Those with genes worth passing on work hard and have 2 or 3 kids.

Those who should really be sterilised stay at home getting drunk and pregnant all day. Seriously, I'm sure we would really enjoy sitting around at home in our pants and drinking all day. Who wouldn't. But WE understand that there are bills to be paid, and we are the ones to pay them.

Quote:
Jade sits four GCSEs this year and hopes to work in IT


Hmmm, never knew IT stood for Incessant Trollop.

Hmmm, never knew W stood for self abuser.
 
Average age for a woman to have sex is 17? So if some are doing this at 25, then that means some are doing it at....9? Er, yes. That's what average means.

Julie, Section 28 might have gone away but I doubt it made the subject any less controversial.

Here's an interesting querstion I ran into the other day. Ifyou are now a married with children hippie, what is the right age to introduce your children to drugs?
 
Sponsored Links
No indeed. One hopes that would particularly apply in the case of sex education. However most people introduce their children to their own favourite foods at a very early age. So then, when is a good age to introduce alcohol? And other drugs?
 
Damocles said:
Average age for a woman to have sex is 17? So if some are doing this at 25, then that means some are doing it at....9? Er, yes. That's what average means.

No it doesn't; if four kids first had sex at 15 and one first had sex at 25 the average age would be 17.
 
keyplayer said:
Damocles, education is not the same as introduction.
Damocles said:
No indeed. One hopes that would particularly apply in the case of sex education. However most people introduce their children to their own favourite foods at a very early age. So then, when is a good age to introduce alcohol? And other drugs?
Damocles said:
Average age for a woman to have sex is 17? So if some are doing this at 25, then that means some are doing it at....9?

Unfortunately, drug and alcohol binge drinking appears to be part of the teenage culture these days.
I think it's important to give a balanced view when talking to kids about drugs/sex. Yes they might make you feel good initially, but these are the long term implications...................etc.
I believe that education is empowerment - which will allow kids (and adults) to make informed choices about their behaviour in relation to drugs, alcohol and sex.
Just to go back to the teenage pregnancy for a sec, the UK has the worst rates in Europe - something has to be done. I'm sure that appropriately directed education regarding these issues, starting early in the childs life will be a start, some responsibilty must also be with the parents as well.
Unfortunately though, we are going to see more teenage pregnancies, more abortions, more sexually transmitted infections until the parents and the education system gets on top of things (so to speak!!!!)
 
Well they did claim that the french are better at this. That they indulge in less binge drinking on account of being introduced to drink domestically at an early age. The analogy would seem to be the same with sex and drugs. The problem we have is the two different viewpoints between those who believe that banning things is best, and those who believe that they should be integrated into normal life.

I am definitely an integrationist.

But I am still wondering what would be the best way for someone dedicated to sex, drugs and rock and roll to integrate these into family life.
 
keyplayer said:
AdamW said:
Proof that the human race is devolving.

Those with genes worth passing on work hard and have 2 or 3 kids.

Those who should really be sterilised stay at home getting drunk and pregnant all day. Seriously, I'm sure we would really enjoy sitting around at home in our pants and drinking all day. Who wouldn't. But WE understand that there are bills to be paid, and we are the ones to pay them.

Quote:
Jade sits four GCSEs this year and hopes to work in IT


Hmmm, never knew IT stood for Incessant Trollop.

Hmmm, never knew W stood for self abuser.

Point out one thing that I have got wrong in that quote...
 
JulieL said:
Unfortunately though, we are going to see more teenage pregnancies, more abortions, more sexually transmitted infections until the parents and the education system gets on top of things (so to speak!!!!)

Come on Julie, surely you aren't actually agreeing with the silly woman who claims the schools are to blame for her daughters getting up the duff! :LOL:

Schools, hence teachers, are there to educate in academic matters. This is why it can be referred to as academic study. Obviously the biological aspects of sex are covered by this, but I really don't think that the greater ramifications fall within a teacher's remit.

Moral and social study is totally different to academic study. If a school tried to force a bible-study class on all the pupils, there would be outrage. "How dare you force religion on our babies! You can't do this! The UK has a 400-year tradition of semi-separation of church and state!"

So why is it that schools are expected to teach other areas of morality and social study? I'll tell you why, because some parents are lazy and embarassed. Now, what use is it for a teacher to sit down 35 kids and tell them all at once? Children grow at different rates. Some need to know about sex early, some not so early. Some never. :eek:

Now, we are on a DIY site here. If you tell me you built a table, and I say "So, how did you build it?" you will proudly tell me of the wood you used, the tools you used to do it, and how many coats of varnish you but on it when you were finished. You might take 20 lines of text to do this.

So, if you make a child, and then later the child asks "So, how did you make me?"... is it REALLY too difficult to say a single sentence: "Well, I put my penis in your mother's vagina and 9 months later you were born"?! The child does not need to know the ins and outs of sex to understand what sex does! I knew that males have penises and females have vaginas at the age of 3. All I knew was one goes inside t'other and child is made, but that was enough for me to know. Anyone with children knows that toddlers have little shame. They run around naked and they don't bat an eyelid if those around them are naked. Anyone who has had a normal upbringing will have seen their parents naked as a young child.

Now, if you don't have the balls to explain sex to your own children, you shouldn't HAVE children.

So to summarise, teachers should no more have to explain sex to your children, beyond biological function, than you should have to explain calculus, Shakespeare and organic chemistry. The wonderful thing about having children is that you create them in your image, and teach them your moral values. It just so happens this ho-tard of a woman is sorely lacking in such values, and we tax payers are picking up her daughters' bill.
 
AdamW said:
Point out one thing that I have got wrong in that quote...
Well I can point out one.
AdamW said:
Those with genes worth passing on work hard and have 2 or 3 kids.
I don't have any kids, nor do I think I'll ever want any of my own. But if I was asked to "help" by a stable lesbian couple, or a straight friend who couldn't have kids naturally for whatever reason, I would. Are my genes "not worth passing on"?

edit: the **** was actually les bian, another victim of the over-zealous auto censor.
 
2 or 3 kids was not an absolute, it is to draw a contrast with the serial sprog-poppers who end up having several children by several fathers.

The intent was to say "Those with genes worth passing on work hard and seldom have more than 2 or 3 kids."

But if I was asked to "help" by a stable les bian couple

I think I can honestly say that there are few men here who wouldn't...
 
AdamW said:
The intent was to say "Those with genes worth passing on work hard and seldom have more than 2 or 3 kids."
Ah, now I see what you mean. That vile thing from wife swap with 8 kids (Lizzy something?), for example, who should really have been sterilized before even having the first...

Yes, agreed.
 
ninebob said:
Ah, now I see what you mean. That vile thing from wife swap with 8 kids (Lizzy something?), for example, who should really have been sterilized before even having the first...

Yes, agreed.

My words got in the way of my meaning :LOL:

Really no plans for kids then? I have discussed this with pretty much every gay bloke I have met, and they all seem rather polarised on the matter. They either say something along the lines of "I'm gay, why would I want to ape heterosexual traditions", or they say "I should have the right to do with my partner what any heterosexual can with theirs". I am yet to hear "Errrm... not really thought about it. Not bothered really."

I think that it is a difficult issue. It would seem that there are not enough adoptive parents going round for all the children who need adopting. Currently it is nigh-on impossible for a gay couple to adopt, largely because they are not legally married as much as anything else. Now, what is worse for the child?

a) Being adopted by a couple of nice chaps in a stable relationship who just so happen to have good hair and like shopping, or
b) never being adopted and growing up feeling unloved?

Now, I know there is the issue of other kids making fun of children with homosexual adoptive parents, but I reckon I have a solution. Boys are adopted by lesbian couples, girls are adopted by gay couples. Can you imagine the respect that a 15-year-old boy would get at school if he could honestly say "Les bians? Yeh, I know les bians. I live with 2, actually". And with girls, well, we have all heard Sara Cox on the radio boasting about her "GBF" all the time. And hearing female friends of mine talk, a gay friend does seem to be something of a designer item amongst girls (I bet they are so chuffed), so a teenage girl who knew loads of gay men would get nuff respect. I am deadly serious here.
 
AdamW said:
Really no plans for kids then? I have discussed this with pretty much every gay bloke I have met, and they all seem rather polarised on the matter. They either say something along the lines of "I'm gay, why would I want to ape heterosexual traditions", or they say "I should have the right to do with my partner what any heterosexual can with theirs". I am yet to hear "Errrm... not really thought about it. Not bothered really."
I think my own opinion is fairly polarised (is that an oxymoron?) - Do I want kids? No. I don't want to play football in the park with a young boy or worry about a young girl's choice of boyfriend. I love my life which involves spending weekdays working hard and weekends drinking or buying nice things from Habitat (slight stereotype there but you have to send yourself up sometimes ;) ).

Put simply, there's no room in my own life for children. But on the other hand, I would think it even more selfish to not lend a helping hand to someone else if they wanted them and my sperm was the way to do it. Especially if my reason for not doing so was "it's not what gay blokes do".

Again, Section 28 comes into it. If kids were educated that any 2 people can have a relationship regardless of gender, I don't think it would spawn a nation of "Colin & Justin"s, just a more tolerant society all round.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top