US bill defines holding hands, kissing as gateway sexual

MaxonTreik

MaxonTreik

Chuunibyou
http://www.wmctv.com/story/17353757/bil ... l-activity

Tennessee senators approved an update to the state's abstinence-based sex education law that includes warnings against "gateway sexual activity."

In a new family life instructions bill, holding hands and kissing could be considered gateways to sex. Planned Parenthood said that allowing state government to define local sex education curriculum could backfire.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether to laugh at how stupid the actual update to this bill is or the fact they're teaching abstinence based sexual education.
 
I held my Mum's hand when I walked across the street as a kid and I hold my little brother's hand when I'm walking out in public with him.

Well, this is awkward (and stupid).
 
I think I'll take the third option and cry.

When will you learn that pushing your dodgy morality on your children and refusing to acknowledge natural biology will F*CK THEM UP, you repressed and repressive bible-bashing freaks. More probably you don't care, because serving your imaginary (and delusional control-freak flesh and blood) masters is more important to you than your children's happiness. I hope you choke to death on your communion wafers.
 
ayase said:
I think I'll take the third option and cry.

When will you learn that pushing your dodgy morality on your children and refusing to acknowledge natural biology will F*CK THEM UP, you repressed and repressive bible-bashing freaks. More probably you don't care, because serving your imaginary (and delusional control-freak flesh and blood) masters is more important to you than your children's happiness. I hope you choke to death on your communion wafers.
Click to expand...
I am sensing a Catholicism and Feminism alliance in this bill update. It makes me shudder.
 
You mean the paranoia being created by the new, slutwalk style "if a man so much as looks at me when I'm in revealing clothes they're a pseudo-rapist" brand of feminism? I guess that would fit with the "don't kiss / touch anyone just in case" thing. That barely even deserves the title, I think proper old-fashioned feminists who believe in equality of the sexes need to take that bunch down a notch.
 
I don't even see why seeking equality is called "feminism". Surely that's a sexist way to coin the concept, and simply saying "gender equality" would suffice. It's not as if women are the only ones that suffer from sexism anyway. Not saying that men suffer as much, but I'm sure you get the point.

However, the people behind this isn't really the point. The point is that this bill update is stupid and so is abstinence based sex ed.
 
^ I think the point ayase was trying to make is that back in the days when feminists were actually fighting for genuine equality (such as the right to vote, equal pay etc) they had a point. Now though, there seems to be a very vocal percentage of them (I emphasise that they're a minority of feminists; they're just more vocal than the majority) who seem more hellbent on now making women the superior sex by bringing men down.

Now, the thing about this which is stupid is abstinence really isn't sex education at all. It's like English lessons being "**** reading - watch the film instead". Besides, if you want children to learn about religion and what you see as a good set of morals, take them to church. School is where people learn hard facts.
 
and a pizza being a vegetable wasn't laughable ......................... well ok that was funny but man theres going to be a lot of schools couples going to be pissed off
 
Josh is correct. This is where it all went wrong and the word feminism was basically hijacked by the forces of misandry to use for their own ends - they're no better than the misogynists they claim to be fighting. There are still plenty of what I'd consider "good" feminists out there though, and a need for them as equality really hasn't been achieved yet. To clarify I think feminism used to be all about being pro-woman in a world which largely isn't. A lot of self-declared feminists since the 80s have instead taken an anti-man, "women can do no wrong" attitude which wasn't a part of feminism until that point.

....

Getting back to the point at hand, this law is ridiculous and flies in the face of the American idea that church and state should be kept separate. School has no place deciding the kind of morality it should impart to students based on their parents or state legislators moral codes (faith schools should just be outright banned). I'd go further and say that even parents imposing their own moral code on children outside of school as you suggest is wrong, Josh. They should be left to make their own decisions for good or ill and decide for themselves what to believe - They'll learn from their experiences and come to their own conclusions that way.
 
Joshawott said:
^ I think the point ayase was trying to make is that back in the days when feminists were actually fighting for genuine equality (such as the right to vote, equal pay etc) they had a point. Now though, there seems to be a very vocal percentage of them (I emphasise that they're a minority of feminists; they're just more vocal than the majority) who seem more hellbent on now making women the superior sex by bringing men down.
Click to expand...
That doesn't address my concern about calling it feminism in the first place, but let's drop this because that's not the point of the thread.
 
ayase said:
Josh is correct. This is where it all went wrong and the word feminism was basically hijacked by the forces of misandry to use for their own ends - they're no better than the misogynists they claim to be fighting. There are still plenty of what I'd consider "good" feminists out there though, and a need for them as equality really hasn't been achieved yet.
Click to expand...

Who was that militant feminist who stabbed Andy Warhol? I know they have a big issue with porn, but the thing is I think porn is just as exploitative (if not more so) of men!! Because we all know that women don't tend to consume an awful lot of the stuff, meanwhile many men are virtually hooked up to the P like it's a IV, and being drained dry!

Getting back to the point at hand, this law is ridiculous and flies in the face of the American idea that church and state should be kept separate. School has no place deciding the kind of morality it should impart to students based on their parents or state legislators moral codes (faith schools should just be outright banned). I'd go further and say that even parents imposing their own moral code on children outside of school as you suggest is wrong, Josh. They should be left to make their own decisions for good or ill and decide for themselves what to believe - They'll learn from their experiences and come to their own conclusions that way.
Click to expand...

I understand this viewpoint, and I agree that at some point you have to let go and let your child make their own choices. But with that said, I'll be damned if I don't embed my moral code into my children, obviously I will let them do their own things and express themselves their own way, but embedded the (very good and important) ethics will be. I will also ensure that my children practice Chen taiji from an early age, daily, and so if they wish, when they older they can always go into teaching it.

After all what is a parent there for if not to guide their charge.

I agree with mr.Treik about the 'feminist' title.
 
vashdaman said:
ayase said:
Josh is correct. This is where it all went wrong and the word feminism was basically hijacked by the forces of misandry to use for their own ends - they're no better than the misogynists they claim to be fighting. There are still plenty of what I'd consider "good" feminists out there though, and a need for them as equality really hasn't been achieved yet.
Click to expand...
Who was that militant feminist who stabbed Andy Warhol? I know they have a big issue with porn, but the thing is I think porn is just as exploitative (if not more so) of men!! Because we all know that women don't tend to consume an awful lot of the stuff, meanwhile many men are virtually hooked up to the P like it's a IV, and being drained dry!
Click to expand...
Hence the emergence of the differing views to sex within feminism. I think the sex-positive feminists realised that sex and personal relationships are one area where women actually do have as much if not more power than men. While it might not be portrayed that way in porn, anyone with any sense knows porn is not real life. Frankly I don't like the misogynistic side of it either, but I wouldn't want it banned - in a free society if you don't like something you simply avoid it. The anti-porn feminist lobby strikes me as being made up of victims of abuse, lesbians, and those who either don't get any or don't enjoy it. But I can sense Maxon's rage building at his thread going off topic so I'll shut up about this now. We can always have a new thread if you're interested in discussing it.

vashdaman said:
Getting back to the point at hand, this law is ridiculous and flies in the face of the American idea that church and state should be kept separate. School has no place deciding the kind of morality it should impart to students based on their parents or state legislators moral codes (faith schools should just be outright banned). I'd go further and say that even parents imposing their own moral code on children outside of school as you suggest is wrong, Josh. They should be left to make their own decisions for good or ill and decide for themselves what to believe - They'll learn from their experiences and come to their own conclusions that way.
Click to expand...
I understand this viewpoint, and I agree that at some point you have to let go and let your child make their own choices. But with that said, I'll be damned if I don't embed my moral code into my children, obviously I will let them do their own things and express themselves their own way, but embedded the (very good and important) ethics will be. I will also ensure that my children practice Chen taiji from an early age, daily, and so if they wish, when they older they can always go into teaching it.

After all what is a parent there for if not to guide their charge.
Click to expand...
I don't really know. Some parents always seem very keen on passing on their world-view, and I don't think it helps humanity move forward at all. That's why we still have things like racism and nationalism (and religion). Not everybody gets these views from their parents, but I find the vocal ones who rally others to these causes have often been brought up with these views being expressed as the norm. Then there are those who one day realise everything their parents have taught them is ******** and become incredibly cynical and apathetic, which may well also destroy their relationship with their parents. I think we should probably just stop having children and perpetuating the suffering altogether. When I read things like the above link I wonder who the hell people think they are that they try to control people like that - and why? Why? Do people have children just so that they can turn them into mini-mes of themselves? It's either that or it's the stranglehold of their religion compelling them to do it.
 
You do have some points there, but the suffering is only perpetuated if the parents are teaching their children stupidity. I on the other hand would not be, but of course I also know that everyone also feels the same way, or else they wouldn't be misinforming their children in the first place. But if I am not the one to impart this information to my children, they will just learn from someone else, and be more vulnerable to a fool's foolishness. And as you know there are a lot of blinded fools out there. There would obviously be much my children would have no choice but to learn by themselves, I just want to give them the proper tool's to be able to be learn properly and discern the false from the real.

I probably wouldn't be militantly creating mini-me's as you might imagine, but I would feel obliged to expound certain knowledge I deem critical (or at least helpful) to my children. There's always the chance they might grow up and denounce everything that I stand for, but as a parent I can only do what I feel is most beneficial for them, and for humanity.

Edit:Why am I suddenly reminded of that letter Dawkin's wrote to his daughter....I'm probably Dawkin's parallel opposite twin brother :eek:
 
As a big believer in the freedom of the individual, I acknowledge that I don't know what is right for anyone else and am also adamant that no-one else can know what is right for me. As such, I think if everybody took a non-interventionist stance and didn't interfere in each others lives, suffering would be minimised because the suffering people cause each other far, far outweighs any they can cause themselves. But if left to their own devices people won't behave like that, because many of them are very controlling. Thus the only way to stop people from behaving in a controlling manner would be to control them, thereby creating a hypocritical system.

The only solution to this problem I've ever been able to come up with is that we should build purely rational machines to govern us which do not take any irrational, emotional factors into account in their governance, nor can they suffer from their own (greed, corruption etc).
 
Some interesting points there definitely.

the suffering people cause each other far, far outweighs any they can cause themselves
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with this statement, though. I actually believe that we all cause ourselves a vastamount of suffering daily. It's just most of time we don't acknowledge it. In fact, I would probably think that the suffering we bring about our own selves outweighs the suffering that is caused by others. I don't believe we have to suffer, though, but I've probably gotten into this in some other thread in the past.

I do agree agree you on minimizing unnecessary intervention, though. I definitely believe the natural way is always the best way, and I also believe that we have all the knowledge and wisdom we need innately within ourselves. But what with with all the distraction, subliminal messages and advertising, and people telling us want we should want what we should think, it can be hard to draw this innate wisdom out without a little help. All I would want to do is give my children a way to bring out this wisdom, so they don't get too caught up in all the pollution that is out there, and at the same time have a clear way to channel their abundant energy. Just trying to give them a head start, I guess.

Most people who try to control others however, are usually victim to their own selfish desires and often suppress people's natural wisdom, hence why it doesn't usually work too well in most cases.

I think the only overall solution to the problem your talking about, is that we as humanity have evolve to the point where we can all get past our own selfish desires and cravings, cultivate real compassion and discover the truth within. I guess, ultimately being able to discern the illusionary from the truth. I'm clearly referring to a spiritual development here, so I guess we would disagree, lol.
 
vashdaman said:
Most people who try to control others however, are usually victim to their own selfish desires and often suppress people's natural wisdom, hence why it doesn't usually work too well in most cases.
Click to expand...
Definitely, and that's what this whole thing is about. I recall a scene in Brave New World where children are engaged in what is described in the book as "erotic play" and the adults don't stop them or think of this as unusual. A lot of people don't want to hear it but if left to their own devices that is what children would do. They would discover their sexuality with others at a fairly young age without any of the shame society traditionally attaches to it. The aimless consumerist lives people live in Brave New World is awful, but I always thought the general lack of black and white morality the society displayed was quite a good thing (though Huxley obviously didn't). Our real world seems to have drawn the short straw again, having developed the crass consumerism and kept the dubious morality.

vashdaman said:
I think the only overall solution to the problem your talking about, is that we as humanity have evolve to the point where we can all get past our own selfish desires and cravings, cultivate real compassion and discover the truth within. I guess, ultimately being able to discern the illusionary from the truth. I'm clearly referring to a spiritual development here, so I guess we would disagree, lol.
Click to expand...
I would disagree, but only with the word "spiritual". Discerning the illusory from the truth, excellent. That's religion out the window first then? ;P In the particular case of human development I won't deny religions have had their uses, but my personal view is that the purpose they have served is to give humanity something to aim for - For us ourselves (or perhaps a bio-mechanical successor species of our own design) to become the ultimate beings described in their teachings as Gods. We can only achieve this by casting aside superstition entirely and simply learning everything there is to learn, knowing everything there is to know and ultimately, we will be able to do everything it is possible to do. To paraphrase you I think our efforts are better directed at discovering the truths without rather than within.
 
I would agree with that there is probably too much duality about, ie the rather damning distinction between saint and sinner, etc. Things are not really so simple and it can often be unhelpful to view people in these terms.

I would disagree, but only with the word "spiritual". Discerning the illusory from the truth, excellent. That's religion out the window first then? ;P In the particular case of human development I won't deny religions have had their uses, but my personal view is that the purpose they have served is to give humanity something to aim for - For us ourselves (or perhaps a bio-mechanical successor species of our own design) to become the ultimate beings described in their teachings as Gods. We can only achieve this by casting aside superstition entirely and simply learning everything there is to learn, knowing everything there is to know and ultimately, we will be able to do everything it is possible to do. To paraphrase you I think our efforts are better directed at discovering the truths without rather than within.
Click to expand...

I would very nearly agree with this entire paragraph, it's just that we're looking at things from slightly different angles. I am definitely of the view that the end goal is to become God, or more precisely to fully unify with what you may call God. And I also agree about casting aside superstition (though, we likely won't agree on what is superstitious and what isn't) and learning all there is to know. But a key difference, is that I don't think we can learn all there is to know by simply using our intellectual and rational minds, we can learn much but not all. I think our efforts would be best directed at receiving knowledge directly from it's source.

As for religion, I would think that once humanity has evolved to certain level, we may not feel the need for specific religions any more and rather may just freely pursue our own individual paths of spiritual development. Though humanity has clearly not reached that stage quite yet, unfortunately.
 
Russians are smarter:

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UpRrL8kspeg?version=3&amp;hl=it_IT"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UpRrL8kspeg?version=3&amp;hl=it_IT" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

(I'm a bit sorry to hijack a serious thread)



Teo
 
After seeing a man blow off his hand with an explosive and people amateur bungee jumping off skyscrapers it's hard to see how Russians are smart at all (unless you were being sarcastic, then carry on).
 
I was sarcastic, I'd like to know what those US bigwigs would think after watching that youtube clip, since that host would fit better in a night club than in a children show (from an extreme to another).

start sarcasm
By the way, I would like to remind that you British people are guilty of creating the Teletubbies.
end sarcasm



Teo
 
Back
Top