Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Pettytyrant101]

"But to me you have just proved his point. You expect to know before hand what he believes,"- Kafria

Not at all. I expect him to tell us, the voters what he believes and how it affects his decision making, before we vote for him. The main job of a PM afterall is to make decisions, surely we have a right to know how he might go about that? I didn't know what he believed in when he was elected, there was no mention of it. Now I do I would not vote for him, not that I did, but millions of others did and many of them I think would not have done so had he presented his religious views. You might say thats unfair on religious views, but if a MP as an opinion, say for the sake of argument they are strongly against abortion don't voters have the right to know that? So why should they not know religious beliefs and vote according to what sits best with them?

"There is a point here that christians that talk about faith in this country are made to feel like nutters"

For the sake of debate I am going to play a little bit of devils advocate here, but look at it from a non-believers point of view.

An invisible all powerful being who has never appeared in any provable or definitive way created the universe and He lives in a separate place called Heaven, which you only get to find out for sure if its real or not once your dead. Thousands of years ago he got some men to write down how we all have to live, except we ditched a lot of it as no longer moral (treatment of women, sacrifice), or necessary because the local council does most of it now (sanitation laws etc). Oh and only certain people who are 'called' can speak with God and they will tell everyone else what they have to do. And you have to give food/money or whatever you have to these people so they can do 'God's work' without being burdened by mundane earthly matters.

If you had never heard of religion and I presented this to you as a concetp, what would you really think of it?

"And petty I respect your right to think I am a nut for believing what I do"

Never Kafria. I have no problem with believing things, I myself have I think quite a broad and busy spiritual life, drawn mainly from concepts from paganism, shamanism and Near Eastern beliefs mixed in with a lot of my own experiences. It is not belief I have a beef with, its religion. For me the two things are different. I don't think humans can exist without varies forms of belief of one kind or another (I believe in New York for example but from my own experience its actually no more real than MInas Tirith- I've seen both on my tv and read about both, but from actual experience all I have his stories and the belief they are true). Most of the human world is like this, so its no wonder we can extend it to cover other areas, such as why are we here. Its not the validity of this desire to believe and to understand I dislike, its those who claim to have definitive answers which must be obeyed for a reward (heaven) or punished (hell).
To set you at ease I once 'met' God during a shamanistic mushroom trip- a short tale I will relate if you wish to hear it- then you can think I am equally nutty if you please!

edit- I agree with every word of your post Eldo! This is getting to be a habit- one of us must be ill!

[Eldorion]

edit- I agree with every word of your post Eldo! This is getting to be a habit- one of us must be ill!

It's not natural, not of it!

[Squach]

Atheism is literally just the lack of theism- Eldo

So, if i can see correctly, there is already an a...
Maybe they never learnt the alphabet! (apart from a, of course)

[Eldorion]

So, if i can see correctly, there is already an a...
Maybe they never learnt the alphabet! (apart from a, of course)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

[Ally]

There are some interesting things been thrown around here guys....

[Pettytyrant101]

Prime Minister David Cameron made his big immigration speech today. The basics of which were- 'I am going to be very carefu l to word this in a way which doesn't cause offence to any one group- but sorry we are full so we are capping how many can get in, unless you are from the EU in which case we have a treaty and can't stop you, or you are super wealthy becasue we need your money.' Ok, I'm paraphrasing but that was the gist of it.
Now just the other nght I was sitting with a friend watching a documentary about the changing face of modern Britain. And they showed a street somewhere in England upon which there was not a white British face to be seen, nor were any of the many shop signs in english, nor was english being spoken as the first (or even third) language. And I turned to my friend and said, 'thats one of the nice things about living in Scotland you no longer need to get on a plane to visit a foreign country, you just go to England.'
When I was growing up the big concept was the 'melting pot' and western govenrments were all at it hoping we'd all mix together and you'd end up with with everyone quite alike, it propbably even works, if you don't mind waiting four or five generations for the result. Now it seems though the melting pot is an old idea, now its about accepting differences and all getting used to putting up with each others ways- so you shouldn't complain about the call to prayer replacing the sound of your church bells, or a market with all the signs in foreign lingo, thats not pc.
Now I am all for immigration but it seems somewhere down the line the politicians have forgotten an improtant thing- humans are tribal. We like to have a bit of the planet we can say is ours and we like the majority of our 'tribe' to be quite a bit like us- this isnt a statmement of race just an observation of the human animal- and if you stick people from another bit of the earth, who look different, in large numbers, on land where a different tribe lives- well you are asking for trouble. Humans seem to always come up with solutions to these things which can only work in an ideal world where everyone is rational and sensible. But we don't actually live there, we live here, where the tribal instinct is still alive and well and waiting on a chance to beat off other tribes with a big stick.
Perhaps immigration would benefit from keeping that in mind when they plan the housing of immigrants.

[Pettytyrant101]

Just watching a documentary on the beeb asking the question 'has human evolution stopped?'
The argument put simply is that for the bulk of modern humans environmental factors which in the past affected survival, and therefore breeding chances, no longer apply.
For example in Shakespeares day only 1 in 3 children would be likely to see their 21st birthday, the rest would be dead. By the time Darwin sat down to write his evolution theory it was 1 in 2. Many childhood illnesses, from measles to asthma are usually non fatal these days. There is now more than a 98% chance of making it to 21. Thats a hell of a difference.
However breeding is not equal across society. Some people have no children and others lots, so if evolution is still happening its in these breeding groups that it will show up. In a study over 60 years in a small American town they calculated how the next generation would look regards height and average weight based on who had been breeding in the town over those years- and it was accurate, or at least statsically accurate (it fell outside the possibility of it being chance in other words)- and if you are curious the residents of that town are getting shorter and plumper.
But do we need evolution any more? Humans are already using genetic modifications and screening, is not just a matter of time before we can replace damaged organs by growing new ones? Or create babies with no genetic defects? And if we can should we?

[Eldorion]

Human evolution is still continuing. The obvious selective pressures of most of human history have been lessened (not ended) in some parts of the world, but the idea that human evolution has stopped thanks to modern technology is a very First World concept. Furthermore, there is still sexual selection as well as random mutation. The only thing that comes to mind that would end human evolution is if reproduction was made an entirely artificial and customizable process, where parents could select a list of genetic traits from a catalogue and have an embryo made for them in a lab. That is, for the foreseeable future, at least, still in the realm of science fiction. The morality of this is too complicated a topic for me to try to think about right now.

Also, it's worth noting that evolution typically (though not always) takes place over a very, very long time. Just because we haven't any radical evolutionary changes in the human population in the 150 years or so that modern biology has existed doesn't mean anything. Evolutionary theory doesn't predict that we would anyway.

^^ My two cents.

[Pettytyrant101]

"Just because we haven't any radical evolutionary changes in the human population in the 150 years or so that modern biology has existed doesn't mean anything."- Eldo

They were covering a much larger time scale than 150 years by using bones and the like from much older humans- the basic human hasn't changed in tens of thousands of years it seems.

One of the last big changes happened with agriculture and the advantages gained by those who were lactose tolerant. But as you rightly say Eldo breeding is the main factor. But in the past as few as 1 in 3 made it to an age when they could breed, so genes that were passed on were from the few who survived, now the majority make it to breeding age. This makes it unlikely we will get the large scale changes of the past- the lactose one being a good example- if you are lactose intolerant in the modern world you just drink something else, its no big deal, its certainly no longer life threatening. Same goes for mothers producing milk for babies, in the past if you couldn't do it the baby starved to death, these days you can choose whether or not to bother breast feeding.
All this has a big effectg on human evolution. Slowly but surely we are removing many of the pressures which drive the process in other living things. And whilst I agree it has not stopped, I don't think it can its not an on/off system, but I do think its slowing more and more (at least until some virus wipes out 3/4 of us and we have to start again!)

[Pettytyrant101]

Blimey politics and religion, ethics and no one wants a debate? Whats up with folks (you excepted Eldo). Everyone on holiday?

[Kafria]

No internet connection at mums unless I hang out the upstairs window, which doesn't help my typing!

On the evolution point - I think that yes environmental pressures are easing, and more of the population are surviving to reproduce widening the gene pool, but an improtant point missed is that a lot of evolutionary theory is not about this slow cahnge over time, the big changes happen when there is a big pressure because of a big change, disease, new predator, ice age, warm period etc so until one of these happens, we're not really going to see big changes.

[Pettytyrant101]

I agree Kafria, for as long as things remain relatively stable humans will probably not have any major changes, but a virulent disease, a massive natural catastrophe or such like and its a whole new ball game.

On another subject, back to religion in fact, a question for the believers out there.
I have a friend who is religous and we were talking whilst out for a walk with his kids. And I said supposing something terrible happened and a car suddenly blow a tyre and swerved off the road and killed one of his kids. Is God to blame? If all is preordained, if He has ultimate knowledge of al our fates, is He resonsible?
My friends reply was no, becasue of humans having free will.
Its an answer I don't find very satisfying as even if God has choosen to stand aside and let things play out that is still a choice. This supreme loving being can put up with mass suffering just to make a point.

I also put the question of how would he view such a tragedy Was it a sign that God was displeased, that my friend was not devout enough or had not met Gods standards? Was it a punishment? A lesson?
He accepted it could be any one of those things and that he would have to try to work out himself why such a thing had happened to him.

This seems to me to be the problem of building a house of cards on a shaky foundation. That foundation being 'I choose to believe in a God without proof of Him'. Anything else you build on top of that becomes increasingly shaky.
My friend takes his religion seriously, practices and studies it. Yet he does not have an answer to what God is trying to say when such a tragedy occurs.

I countered that as a non believer I could examine the car that caused it, the tyre that bew out, whatt caused the blow out, every stage in fact leading up to and casung the tradegy- and nowhere in that process would there be any evidence of any gods.
But I am curious. Given the same premise, a close personnal tragedy- how do believers quanitfy what has happened with their God?

[odo banks]

We Bankses believe in Voluntary Evolution. Eru organized it that way so those who wanted to change could change, but those who wanted to remain "respectable" didn't have to.

[Pettytyrant101]

I always thought the Banks clan had evolved differently from the rest of us!

This is really for the English on here- those who know the Sun newspaper as a right wing Tory rag- heres the Scottish Sun, same paper, same company (Murdoch). They have today thrown their weight behind the SNP in the eelction, a centre left party- heres a link to their frankly astonishing editorial from todays paper

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3534178/Scottish-Sun-urges-voters-to-hand-Alex-Salmond-second-term-at-May-5-election.html

Sadly its missing my favourite bit- where they actually admitted they got it wrong at the last Scottish elections by backing Labour. Their front page on the day of that election was the SNP symbol transformed into a noose and the headline 'a vote for the snp puts all of scotland in the noose'.

[Kafria]

Okay - new topic and a rant from me. (this is about sexualisation of kids and the clip is one that is restricted to over 18's on youtube so be warned!)

Just caught the second episode in channel 4s new series of the sex education show. I have a lot of respect for this programme in tackling issues for teens head on in a no nonsense fashion, but the latest crusade and 'isn't this outrageous' intro from the presenter actually had the opposite effect on me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7haMeJl_KI&list=SL&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fshow%3Fp%3D-o5A1xIlc_g%26tracker%3Dshow_av&has_verified=1
link is for the first episode in the series that I haven't watched, but has the same intro.

I had two points that came to mind, one was that a lot of this 'children are becoming too sexuallised' stuff does not actually take into account childrens perceptions of this stuff them selves. Padded trainer bras are popular with a lot of young teens, but this is not about enhancing their breasts, but covering up completely at a time when they are extremley self concious, equally underwear with slogans mean nothing to the kids themselves it is from our adult perspective that they seem wrong. So this is where being a parent comes in and that increadible word 'no!' If you think it is wrong to you, then communicate that to your child! (I can't work out what is wrong with the shorts, kids have been wearing shorts for years!)

There are key issues here, where lads mags are displayed, access to inappropriate images (and the internet, one of the shock stats was that sex was the 7th most searched term on the internet for under 7s - I was more shocked that under 7s where getting unsupervised access to the internet!), but by focussing on some lesser issues these get lost. This 'isn't this shocking' crusade is not going to help a considered response to the genuine concerns that underpin it.

finished now!

[Pettytyrant101]

Just watched the show Kafria- never seen it before and can't say I feel particularly comfortable with it as a show. It seems on one hand to be a moral crusader and on the other the worst sort of exploitation and sensationalism.
I had not considered your insightful point about how young girls themselves might view such products in light of their own uncomfortableness with the changes occuring to them. A good point I think. Not so sure about the slogans on clothing- some of them seem very inappropriate.

From a male perspective- and I should add I am leaving any religous viewpoint out of this, for the sake of my argument I will be going on the basis humans are a type of mammal and our sexual behaviour is devolped through evolution- the truth is males react to to females based on signals and signs. If a female walks passed a male, or comes within view, and she has legs on display in a tiny skirt, or prominant breasts a male will commonly notice these features before noticing the age. If the female in question upon closer viewing turns out to be younger than her dress sense might at first indicate this can be very uncomfortable- because the sexual reaction has already happened- after that the social part of the brain takes over and rejects (hopefully) any other signals. But the signals being put out is a problem I think in young girls. Humans have evolved to react to signs that a female has become ready to reproduce. Confusing those signals and giving the false impression a female is ready (by natures standards) to reproduce when they are clearly not or society has deemed it unacceptable, can only lead to trouble.

[odo banks]

I have difficulty with two things which inescapably come to mind whenever I think about children and sexuality.

(1) In the wild, animals (mammals, if you like, to make the point more directly about us), reproduce when they are old enough to reproduce. The sexual act is involved. We humans tend to have stictures (and measures) about what is a suitable linear age for children to behave reproductively - and prohibitive laws in fact about suitable linear ages. Strange? Maybe not... See (2).

(2) Any mature adult who would exploit inexperience has something seriously wrong with them, I feel. Surely adults have adult relationships with other adults, which has more to do with trust and empathy and fairly little to do with the sex act, though, of course, the latter is still important, as a healthy relationship still requires intimacy. Adults who have "relations" with children (even if they are physically able to reproduce) obviously are only interested in a limited selection of tactile sensations, and no "real" relationship. Indeed, "predatory" is an apt description of what I'm talking about.

[Kafria]

can't say I feel particularly comfortable with it as a show.

In my job I see many confused teens and have spent time teaching health and well being and the sex ed parts of the curriculum, to be honest it really isn't adequate(mechanics in science which is mandatory, feelings/stis/pregnancy etc in other lessons that parents can remove their child from. The split means it is never taught as a whole and is taught often by non specialists who are embarassed themselves!) and if teens are uncomfortable at home talking about this stuff they have nowhere to get this info from (but they will watch these shows, from the talk you hear the next day!) for this reason the info part of the show is great to my mind, even if they go a bit over the top!

Not so sure about the slogans on clothing- some of them seem very inappropriate.

I agree and this is not a new thing it's been around since Squach was tiny, but the kids themselves don't pick these things out their parents go 'oh thats funny and cute' and dress baby as a mini me. So if we as a society want to change that we as parents start dressing kids as kids (my personal bugbear with slogans was the trackie bottoms with words written across the backside - hated them and Squach never owned a pair!) This is my central problem with the clothes issue in that the clothes were for pre teens 8-11ish, mum and dad should at this age still be heavily involved in the buying of clothes and have a veto on the wrong stuff, because shops don't continue to stock what doesn't sell!

the truth is males react to to females based on signals and signs.

Absolutely, so I think the issue here is bigger than simply manafacturers targetting inappropriate clothing at pre teens. How we interpret signals is conditioned by the signals around us. With the baltant use of sex to sell anything and everything and the emphasis on it as the be all and end all in life it becomes difficult to recognise the innocence of some things. Our society has become less repressive about sex and a lot of stuff is now only interpreted in that context. In terms of popstars and skimpy clothes if you look back to decades gone by some of the clothing (dancing girls the mini in the 60's) was as skimpy, but was seen in a more innocent (not completely I know) light. So if we want to start to tackle this issue we need to look at ourselves and our attitudes to sex and how it is apparent in everyday life.

But the signals being put out is a problem I think in young girls

I think this is always going to be a problem to some extent and for similar reasons to the padded bra, young girls are always wanting to be a bit more grown up, whether it is wearing make up, have heeled shoes or wearing fashionable clothes, it is part of experimenting to find out who they are and a lot of it is done without intending to attract attention. This again comes back to parenting, giving space and time to experiment, but pulling back the worst excesses to protect your child. The problem with that is that a lot of parents don't seem to seen the dangers and it can be difficult to know where to draw the line sometimes.

odo I have to agree on both points!

[Ally]

I have seen parts of the show, and it hit me that while the show definitely had a point they are going about it the completely wrong way. Maybe it was just me, but it's been made to appeal to younger people and talks about sex all time and they they complain about how through magazines etc, how freely available it is! Then they get thrown out of Primark (unless I'm thinking of a different show) and I'm sat here thinking I'm watching a spoof or something! It is of course at the parent's discretion to decide what's best for their daughters, and as I said before the main tv demographic of this sort of programming is probably young people themselves- they are unlikely to protest!

I also really did not understand the padded bra nonsense in primark and matalan, it's only a thin layer of foam, it's hardly going to give little girls a bust! I imagine they put this in just to fit with the "Pimping our kids campaign" slogan/title.

But if girls dress sense is maturing more quickly I wonder why this has happened, for TV/newspapers have been around for decades, and I can't imagine this problem with my mum & generation as they were growing up! (Though maybe I'm mistaken!)

(Talking of slogans, and maybe adults inexperience/naivety, I was walking around Cardiff's St David's arcade yesterday, and saw a little girl, probably about 6/7 years of age, wearing a t-shirt that said 'eat my cherry' on and a picture of red licking lips, walking along with her parents. Maybe they did have her best interests are heart, so really that's the demographic that such campaigns should be aimed at!


(I skimmed over a few points raised by you three, i.e ignored them, for even for an intelligent being like myself, some things go a bit over my head here!)

[Pettytyrant101]

"How we interpret signals is conditioned by the signals around us."- Kafria

Yes but who is responsiblefor those signals? Parents or government? For example when I was at school I remember girls being sent home to change because their skirt was too short, or they were wearing earings or makeup. It was not acceptable attire as part of the school uniform. On my way home from work this morning I saw a girl of about 15 on her way to school in a tiny skirt, a face full of makeup and wearing earings. So why has the school changed its policy over the years to allow this, is it pressure form the pupils they have caved in to? Or from parents? And as to miusic videos particularly by female artsits, well they would not have got on tv before the 9pm waterdshed when I was growing up.
It seems to me the levers of society to reduce this sort of sexualisation still exist- the school for example could go back to its old policy on uniform, tv could more strictly enforce the watershed rule on content- but the will to do so seems to be lacking.

On a related point I have a friend who is a teacher and from speaking to him there is a whole extra level of difficulty and pressure on the male teachers when confronted with a classroom of late teenage girls, who are already in a hormonally charge state, dressed in provocative clothing. And I can easily sympathise with his position as its very difficult to ignore or not be distracted by such strong natural signals, let alone effectively teach under such circumstances.

Odo I agree entirely that an adult should be able to rationalise sexual signals and effectively catogorise them. Taking advantage of the nieviety and inexpercience of anyone for your own gratification is always wrong in my view, but on the other hand if the human race had always had these rules on when sex was appropriate and when it was not until the person was 'old enough' rather than when nature starts producing the changes necessary, then the human race would probably not have got this far, especially in periods of history when average human lifespan was as low as mid-thirties (Mary the mother of Jesus was probably about 14 or 15 when she was married to Joseph for example).
Having said that we however do not live in such times, we have a long lifespan, longer than ever before. We have the luxury of allowing our children a long childhood (even a hundred years ago most children would be out of education and working full time in an adult environment by 14 at the latest). I think its a good thing we can offer a longer childhood but it obviously causes problems where nature and society cross and over the years I have developed the view that humans cover a broad spectrum from mainly mammal (by which I mean people who act mainly on instinct and react to events) to human (by which I mean the intellect is strong enough to override instinct and therefore reaction). In a society which exalts youth and its sexual potential it is little wonder those closer to the 'mammal' end of the scale often fail to overcome the powerful natural instincts and fail in the test - I should be clear here I am talking about females who are by natures laws capabale of sexual reproduction regardless of legal limits, those who get their sexual gratification from children and prepubescents are in my view menatally ill and should be treated as such).
The problem therefore seems to me that the 'higher ideals' of society, that sexual releations should not begin until a person reaches an age deemed appropriate, is in conflict with natures law, that humans are ready for sexual releationships when their body matures enough. I agree with the 'higher ideal' as a principle but I don't think as a society, especially such a sexually visual one, that we should be suprised when it doesn't always work out that way.

ps good topic for debate Kafria, the more I think about it the deeper it gets and the more aspects there seem to be to it.

[odo banks]

There is so much to look at in all your comments folks - my mind boggles!

One thing I would offer the discussion is this: we have evolved to a point where we think it somewhat unacceptable that a young girl should reproduce, even though, with modern medicine, the physical risk is far less than in more ancient times. Do we insist on our children nowadays being "children" longer against the imperatives of nature itself? I take as the starting point of this the idea that giving birth is one of the cleaner cut determinants of childhood's end.

Btw childhood seems a trickier universe than when I was young. Indeed, I may have been a parent much earlier in life if the girls who I was friendly with weren't reproductively wiser than me. (Thank their Mums?) Who should teach this stuff? (Mums? Could be an answer!) Hey! Should we let some ideologue - secular or religious - some young teacher just out of school - some parent - some street guru - some Mr Trial-and-Error, or some Mr Trial-and-Errors sister, teach Sex Ed???

[Pettytyrant101]

"Do we insist on our children nowadays being "children" longer against the imperatives of nature itself?"- Odo

Thats an interesting point Odo. If you go back to earlier human society, say bronze/iron age, a child would most likely grow up in one house containing all their relatives. Death, sex and work would be a part of their everyday world from the word go. So much of what modern children are divorced from understanding; sex, releationships, death, even where food comes from and what you have to do to get it, all seem to be distant and slipping away in the modern world. Our children are no longer learning these things from the immediate environment they grow up in. Nor are they having to contribute to the running and work from a very early age. I think this distancing of children from direct expercience is a problem. A child in the past would be an adult by 14 at most, they would have been working since probably about 6. Childhhood is now a much longer period of time, and it does seem imposed by society rather than being any underlining natural order to it.

[Kafria]

A child in the past would be an adult by 14 at most,

An interesting statement, there is little doubt that physically some children mature earlier and in times gone by girls where married by 10-12, or that they would start work earlier. I would argue however that this is not the same as being an adult, physical changes continue to take pace until the early 20's for some and emotionally it takes as long (if not longer). We are more defensive of childhood and I think this comes form recognising that in times gone by childhood did not last as long as it should. so yes things are changing, but not from society ideals, more through recognising when true adulthood begins.

This is separate from the issue of experience of things from direct experience and think this is a valid point. Kids have more, are expected to do less and are 'protected' in a way they never have been before. From not being allowed out to play or help with home tasks, childrens understanding of risk is diminished. This means that they get into bigger trouble when they do have freedom. In terms of sexual awareness, this shows in the desire to appear a grown up in dress, which leads them into situations they are not equiped to handle as we don't talk openly about sex and relationships or the emotional impact.

When it comes to who should teach this stuff, well parents should be open with their kids. Unfortunately this is not always the case and as with most things schools are expected to cover this to make sure none miss out. Keeping the whole subject together and teaching it from an emotion perspective would be a big start. Getting the proper training for staff would be another plus (despite being trained in a subject a qualified secondary teacher can be instructed to teach any subject except RE by the head if it is deemed necessary!)

[Ally]

Odo, I think today we let children grow up in their own time, unlike in times come past where society forced children to grow up and work in factories and mines. Now children can mature at their own pace & it's up to parents to make sure children are protected in their world of childhood, but still clear-thinking people of independent character when they grow up.

Children's childhoods are changing inline with the things they are exposed with, but I'm sure young girls in the 60s sought the make up in magazines, and young boys sought to be the hero of action film, it's just the parents job to protect their innocent but to also make sure that they are not navie in certain aspects of life as Kafria said.

[odo banks]

Ally, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I prefer kids to be kids for as long as reasonably possible. The parent's role, I feel, is to protect them from themselves (no matter how painfully annoying it may be for them). It really is a question of how much trust (and how much rope) you can give a child without performing that protective role adequately. It's a hard job.

Years and years ago, a friend of mine said parents should be forced do a course on Parenting. Thinking now about this, perhaps it might be a good idea for Adults to do the Sex Education section of such a course (the whole Parenting Course would take too long, I feel - a lifetime?). It may offer strategies for dealing with their children's growing sexual development.

There can be no easy answers on this one, however hard we try to find them. It doesn't help that kids not only develop sexually at different rates from one to the next, but they also develop psychlogically at different rates too - and bearing in mind that individual experiences (and experience) vary so, the psychologhical development can mature in one aspect but not in another...

Kafria, schools taking up the shortfall does make some sense, but doesn't it smack of being a bit Big Brothery? Also a possible infringement on Parental rights - and the worst kind of sticky-beakery? I joke, but as with many jokes, there is some truth to this. And - for the record - I have always owned a fair amount of doubt about strangers teaching my kids about sex, especially as we all have our opinions and these things can slip out quite easily from the mouth - especially teachers' mouths. (They do think they're more knowledgeable than anyone else - including each other - after all! )

Yes, some teachers are neutral (objective) in their utterances, but many have too much to say for themseves, frankly. I'm married to one of the more neutral ones, thank Illuvatar, but she's in the minority, and I've met far too many the other kind, thank you very much! (They're a lot like cops, come to think of it...)

Sheez... I was happier when I was thirteen and knew everything. Now I'm like Socrates and know nothing!