80% Say Parents Should Teach Their Children about Sex

Then you'd be correct! :applause:

 

Well, they CAN take half yer money, yer house, & make you pay upkeep & child support, even after the kids are grown.

Yes, MP, the gov't prescribes SERIOUS consequences for adultery.

Blessed IS the nation who's God is the Lord. Like it or not.

 

The fact that you disagree with the response speaks not to its legitimacy. The point stands...secular law differs from God's law.

 

This is a mixed message at best, and at worst, gives an implicit permission for pre-marital sex.

When we moved to VA, I discovered the state had the FLE program (Family Life Education) that taught sex ed as well other things. Some things were safety rules, which were good, others were New Agey. I had to go to the school and read the notebook because that was the only way a parent could see the material. I opted my child (4th grade at the time) out of most sessions and then the school counselor tried to initimidate me into keeping him in. She said that 500 ministers had approved the program (she went to a liberal SBC church - no longer SBC now). I told her that I didn't care if every minister in the United States had approved it, I was opting him out.

In middle school, the principal's secretary told me, a working single mom, I had to go to the school on a weekday to get the opt-out form. I told her my boss would not understand me taking time off for a form they could mail me. She asked the prinicipal about it and the next day told me I still had to come in. So I said this: "Fine, I will come in but please tell the principal that if I come in, she and everyone else in the school is going to know I'm there because I am not going to be quiet." Guess what? The form was sent to me.

Now in FLE they are showing films on same sex stuff and saying it's okay.

 

They didn't trust either God or their daughter.

 

>He did not teach to make provisions in case you "mess up". That gives a level of permission.

He did by example, the sacrifices for misdemeanors.

 

Well, I'll tell how it used to be done before the state mandated that it was the responsibility of the schools.

In many communities (and this is my own experience as well), respected and credible organizations within the community would canvass the area with letters to the parents or guardians of children and invite them to attend a meeting with their child of the same sex to discuss the birds and the bees. This was basic pre-teen information.... and the girls' instruction often preceded the boys instruction as girls enter puberty earlier. It included modesty, communication with parents, appropriate behavior expectations regarding regarding boy-girl association, and the moral implications that what was happening in our bodies was a process of developmental and emotional growth which would take place over a period of a few years, and prepare us for the time when we might marry and then have children. People who were available as 'resource' persons were identified..... often female teachers, a school nurse, or a neighbor in the community to which parent and child could seek additional information or answers to their questions.

I think the boys instruction was less structured and informal, and often took place between father-son, or, with notification of the parent, in hygiene, agriculture, biology classes or instruction by the coach. Parents were invited to attend, to ask questions, to participate in discussions and informed of resources available to them. There was a strong emphasis on appropriate conduct and restraint, and responsibility.

The only methods of birth control at that time was barrier and rhythm. Young people were encouraged to respect curfews given, to keep company in groups, that simple things like hand holding and/or kissing, or dancing too close could be a dangerous prelude to actions originallly unintended..... and cautious distance when alone with such opportunity was the best policy.

No, we didn't have the mass of teenage pregnancies which we have now. But a lot of things were different then. In spite of all the talk about the inhibiting of morality in reports like the liars of the Kinsey report.... one only had to look at the number of families having children, and the number of homes which were intact and conclude differently. Morality and restraint before marriage didn't mean dysfunction or dissatisfaction in marriage. I cannot speak for the men folk on this board... but ladies which I've talked to who's experiences were similar to mine in that 'restricted generation' lead me to think that marriage and the consummation within a stable and loving and committed and responsible relationship, brought a freedom to the individual and a confidence of trust and bonding to the couple, which few can imagine today.

I know this is a topic which is not supposed to appear on this board or be discussed due to the public nature of this board..... but, without going into particulars, I do believe there are some dignified ways of some limited discussion..... And the current generation which knows of no alternative but that to which they have been exposed, may well wonder what and how to change if they truely wanted a different way of delivering information to their children.

I do know from discussions with my grandmother, who died about 1978 at the age of 93, that little to none information was given her... but the family was large and lived on a farm, and there were some things which were of limited knowledge and wern't shared until 'when the time was right'..... sometimes right up to the wedding day....and sometimes not even then: But she never felt a loss for what she wasn't told...... And she still blushed when my granddad kissed her!

So much innocence has been lost to this generation: So much which used to be approached with a reverance, an awe, a mystery and a special communion shared between husband and wife in the presence of God.... is now played out in text books, and on the screens of theatre... as being as casual and uninvolved as a handshake on the street.

 

In my school days, one didn't even mention pants (ladies dainties) either in public or mixed company. That was about the extent of sex education in school or at home.

To-day, my question is Who is going to start teaching the parents if sex education is to be taught at home?

Cheers,

Jim

 

What a monumentally stupid post.