Explicit pamphlets displayed at school (1 Viewer)

[waddle_828]

grade 6 is high school now?

in america it is...

 

[Xayma]

No in America Grade 9 is High School.

Grade 6 is Junior High.

Edited: Its 9 instead of 10 opps

 

[waddle_828]

No in America Grade 10 is High School.

Grade 6 is Junior High.

oh ok
well i was wrong
thanks for the clarification

 

[Dustin_z]

grade 6 is high school now?

Grade 6 - 8 is middle school (aka junior high), at least in Tennessee it is and that is the only state I have been to school in.

Im not sure what it is in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is probably the most liberal state in the united states. So if this pamphlet was to be in any state I am not surprised that it was in Massachusetts.

Most grade 6 - 8 students don't know what 'fisting', 'watersports' etc is. Even I didn't know until I saw this article and the pamphlet. Why would they teach kids that age how to do fisting especially considering how dangerous it is.

I have a read a bit about it now and it is probably one of the most dangerous things you could do, and it can result in permanent damage to the rectum. Some people who have been fisted now have to wear diapers because they cant control their bowel.

 

[Xayma]

The pamphlet was a harm minimisation piece. It was never intended to be displayed and was stated this way. It was a small amount and even then at least one was picked up by someone who was well above the high school age (although I dont know, but she might find the fisting information useful).

 

[Genesys]

Although the language is offensive the information is needed, perhaps just put across in another way. They could have been more tactful in how they displayed it, but perhaps a good point was made in that it is trying to use shock tactics to get the message across. It should not have been available to anyone under 18, but I think it is worse that this is what the youth of today respond to than that this is what people are producing.

 

[loquasagacious]

Does anyone find it interesting that Dustin feequents a site like the Alliance of homophobes....

 

[katie_tully]

hahahaha. i like it. although i don't quite think it's the type of thing you take to a high school ...

handy dandy condom guide though, everybody needs that.

 

[Wesnat]

I think sex-ed should centre more around love, relationship and happiness and other things come second.

And yes, I'm a male.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I think sex-ed should centre more around love, relationship and happiness and other things come second.

And yes, I'm a male.

Then it wouldn't be sex-ed it would be relationship-ed.

 

[Wesnat]

Then it wouldn't be sex-ed it would be relationship-ed.

The 2 should be closely related, I'd say. We do need education about condoms and such and such, but usually as a result we often take sex for granted. This is where the relationship-ed comes in (which schools really lack ). It should be treated as a complement to sex-ed - the purpose of sex etc etc. But this is coming from a rather religious person. So, meh.

We're going a bit off topic, but anyway.

 

[Xayma]

The 2 should be closely related, I'd say. We do need education about condoms and such and such, but usually as a result we often take sex for granted. This is where the relationship-ed comes in (which schools really lack ). It should be treated as a complement to sex-ed - the purpose of sex etc etc. But this is coming from a rather religious person. So, meh.

We're going a bit off topic, but anyway.

If we are teaching about the purpose of sex then why is there the need for information about condoms?

We should be teaching males to sleep around as much as possible to further spread their genes and females to pick the best partner.

The problem with relationship ed is that there is no set way for relationships to work. The respect of both partners can be emphasised but that is really all. However, things like condoms do have a set way to work and generally puberty works the same way for members of the same sex.


----------

To all those who are mentioning that it shouldn't be shown to under 18 year olds, it was never intended on being shown. It was shown accidently and the organisation has apologised. The original posters intenion as far as I can tell was more to foster discussion about the pamphlet (judging from the site he got it from and his comments, a negative discussion).

It isn't aimed to be picked up by those who are straight or those who are under 18. If you are picking up the book chances are you will find at least part of it useful, (despite the nature of it, it still does contain some useful information), and educating those who partake in those activities is probably better then letting them undertake it without it.

Jumb - without AIDS there probably would be more gay people alive today, however, there would also be more straight people alive and medical costs would plummet. I highly doubt the 25% of adults living in Botswana with HIV/AIDS are gay. Or that many women in the USA (particularly African American and Hispanic) (numbering into the 40%) who have had sex with an intravenous drug user and now have HIV are homosexual males either. The rate of AIDS infections inside Sydney amoung gays is down, mainly due to greater education.

 

[Wesnat]

If we are teaching about the purpose of sex then why is there the need for information about condoms?

We should be teaching males to sleep around as much as possible to further spread their genes and females to pick the best partner.

The problem with relationship ed is that there is no set way for relationships to work. The respect of both partners can be emphasised but that is really all. However, things like condoms do have a set way to work and generally puberty works the same way for members of the same sex.

Hmmmmmm.

The first sentence got me.

Maybe it's not so much sex-ed combined with relationship-ed. Rather, with sex-ed, we should also have a separate but complementary relationship-ed.

You're spot on in the last paragraph. But we should have a mention of relationships being related to sex somewhere at least.

 

[jumb]

Jumb - without AIDS there probably would be more gay people alive today, however, there would also be more straight people alive and medical costs would plummet. I highly doubt the 25% of adults living in Botswana with HIV/AIDS are gay. Or that many women in the USA (particularly African American and Hispanic) (numbering into the 40%) who have had sex with an intravenous drug user and now have HIV are homosexual males either. The rate of AIDS infections inside Sydney amoung gays is down, mainly due to greater education.

That's collateral.

 

[HellVeN]

I think sex-ed should centre more around love, relationship and happiness and other things come second.

And yes, I'm a male.

A cock sucking male at that. You're a fucking loser if you think that sex is all about "love". It's an act of pleasure you fucking fag.

And about the pamphlet, it's nothing that a kid over the age of 8 wouldn't have already seen on the internet. Oh wait - Americans haha. They rate PG movies R. No wonder Americans are so intellectualy challenged. Conservative pricks.


Oh and gay sex is very wrong indeed. Anyone who enjoys pressing his cock over someone else's cock and then ramming it into a hairy ass crack has got problems.

Bisexual females are ok.

 

[soha]

in reguards to the pamphlet
fair enuff they need to educate people but it seemed like it was encouraging people

 

[Xayma]

A cock sucking male at that. You're a fucking loser if you think that sex is all about "love". It's an act of pleasure you fucking fag.

And about the pamphlet, it's nothing that a kid over the age of 8 wouldn't have already seen on the internet. Oh wait - Americans haha. They rate PG movies R. No wonder Americans are so intellectualy challenged. Conservative pricks.


Oh and gay sex is very wrong indeed. Anyone who enjoys pressing his cock over someone else's cock and then ramming it into a hairy ass crack has got problems.

Bisexual females are ok.

He is allowed to have his own view on what sex is about. Although I wish he would not press it onto others.

In regards to Americas censorship of movies it is an inhouse censorship, with films able to released unrated, they adopt a fairly tight critera in order to avoid governmental regulation.

Have you ever considered that gay sex doesn't necessairly mean anal sex, nor are they the only ones to do it:

Dr. Trevor Corneil, a physician at the Downtown South’s Three Bridges Community Health Centre and a clinical associate professor at UBC, points out in a phone interview that “surveys have shown that anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of heterosexual couples have engaged in anal sex, many on a regular basis, contradicting the general belief that this is a ‘homo’ activity.” Because anal sex, like kink, doesn’t fit into the social construct of “normal” (or “vanilla”, as the kink community calls it) sex, he’s concerned that there’s a lack of knowledge and dialogue about safe technique.

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=9931

For one who calls the Americans "Conservative pricks" you fall right into that category with classifying gay sex as wrong.

But oh wait, you find bisexual females ok, next time try thinking when the blood in your body is in the right place.

Soha: I more got the impression that the pamphlet was encouraging safe practices ie harm minimisation rather than a flat out encouragement of it (which would have minimal harm minimisation techniques and probably more ways to make it feel good).

 

[HellVeN]

Your assumption is false.
My reasons for despising homosexuals have nothing in common with the reasons presented by religious conservatives. First of all I'm not even religious at all.
I simply hate everything about them: their feminine behaviour, the way they talk etc.
I take back my "WRONG" argument. I just plain hate homosexuals and I think that homosexual relations are detrimental to society.


Then again, gay sex is now considered OK, but father daughter incest is Not considered OK.
So I wonder what is so different if we pretend that all the right precautions are taken and both parties are mutually complient? Makes you wonder.

 

[Xayma]

Your assumption is false.
My reasons for despising homosexuals have nothing in common with the reasons presented by religious conservatives. First of all I'm not even religious at all.
I simply hate everything about them: their feminine behaviour, the way they talk etc.
I take back my "WRONG" argument. I just plain hate homosexuals and I think that homosexual relations are detrimental to society.


Then again, gay sex is now considered OK, but father daughter incest is Not considered OK.
So I wonder what is so different if we pretend that all the right precautions are taken and both parties are mutually complient? Makes you wonder.

If precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy, and the daughter and father are both of age to have an informed consent (at the age of full brain development (which is around 21 or so)) then I can see no moral objection to it.

Feminine behaviour, the way they talk?? Yay for generalisations. Meanwhile all straight white people are fundamentalist Christians and Asians are dirty opium addicts.

 

[waddle_828]

If precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy, and the daughter and father are both of age to have an informed consent (at the age of full brain development (which is around 21 or so)) then I can see no moral objection to it.

Feminine behaviour, the way they talk?? Yay for generalisations. Meanwhile all straight white people are fundamentalist Christians and Asians are dirty opium addicts.

LOL

great post!

oh and hellven

so if there is a gay male who doesn't have the gay accent, or doesn't act feminine, in fact you would be suprised if they came out to you they act that straight. do you hate them?