New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Sorry, guys... no comfy balls for you!

Barbella

Senator
Again, I don't see the appropriateness of replacing the parent(s) in this instance.

We were all kids....so what happens.. is familiar.

That we assume by default that kids cant curb it, or should receive specifics at that age is an inappropriate assumption, IMO. I certainly understand and agree with age appropriate sex ed (generic. anatomy, biology, physiology...) I do not feel it proper to discuss gender identity, prophylactic use, STDs..or the provision of same.....outside of my control. And i'm pretty sure many would agree with the position.

Operating from the vantage that they by default all want to bang one another instills what i perceive to be a negative connotation to the understanding of sex and sexuality.
Some of us operate from the vantage that our kids aren't mindless little animals who can't control their sexual urges, and can't be taught to "wait" a few years.

My granddaughter is turning 12 next month. She's into horses, photography, arts and crafts and a bunch of other hobbies... having sex is the furthest thing from her mind, guaranteed. In fact, at this point she thinks it's rather disgusting....

There's absolutely NO NEED for any goading from PP to push her in that direction. She'll get there when SHE'S good and ready... without being prompted and encouraged. When she does, she'll have plenty of people right here that she can, and will, talk to. This house is very open about sexual issues, but at the same time, no one will PUSH the kids to discuss things they're not ready for, or even interested in.

My grandson, at 15, knows all about the birds and the bees... and he knows about the responsibilities that come with having sex. At this point, he'd rather take care of his own needs than take a chance on getting a girl pregnant or catching a disease... or even getting emotionally and physically entangled to a point where breaking up with someone only gets harder and more complicated once you have sex with that person... and at HIS age, breaking up with the girl is almost guaranteed.

He's a smart kid, straight A student, honor roll, heavily into sports, and a clear vision of his future. Having indiscriminate sex and getting himself all tied up with some emotionally volatile girl by having sex with her simply isn't part of the plan at this time.

:)
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Nobody has said anything about replacing parents. Parents are free to teach whatever they want. It's their first amendment right. And nobody is talking about operating with the idea that all kids want to do is bang one another. But, yes, I absolutely want to educate kids about the risks of STDs and pregnancy and ways they can protect themselves, at an age young enough that the education can help protect them.
Then we disagree... my kid, and no kid i know, is in need of that kind of education at that age, and i find the suggestion that some action is needed to forestall STDs and or pregnancy to 13 and 14yo's, somewhat offensive.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Some of us operate from the vantage that our kids aren't mindless little animals who can't control their sexual urges, and can't be taught to "wait" a few years.

My granddaughter is turning 12 next month. She's into horses, photography, arts and crafts and a bunch of other hobbies... having sex is the furthest thing from her mind, guaranteed. In fact, at this point she thinks it's rather disgusting....

There's absolutely NO NEED for any goading from PP to push her in that direction. She'll get there when SHE'S good and ready... without being prompted and encouraged. When she does, she'll have plenty of people right here that she can, and will, talk to. This house is very open about sexual issues, but at the same time, no one will PUSH the kids to discuss things they're not ready for, or even interested in.

My grandson, at 15, knows all about the birds and the bees... and he knows about the responsibilities that come with having sex. At this point, he'd rather take care of his own needs than take a chance on getting a girl pregnant or catching a disease... or even getting emotionally and physically entangled to a point where breaking up with someone only gets harder and more complicated once you have sex with that person... and at HIS age, breaking up with the girl is almost guaranteed.

He's a smart kid, straight A student, honor roll, heavily into sports, and a clear vision of his future. Having indiscriminate sex and getting himself all tied up with some emotionally volatile girl by having sex with her simply isn't part of the plan at this time.

:)

I find the tone offensive. 'We need to do something, cause, you know, them young uns at that age..welllll.....bingo bango....'

Bullshit.
 

connieb

Senator
I find the tone offensive. 'We need to do something, cause, you know, them young uns at that age..welllll.....bingo bango....'

Bullshit.
Indeed. There is more to them having sex than just their urges as well. How about parenting in general. I can't even imagine how I could have had sex at that age. I wasn't allowed to be at a friend's house without their parent, I wasn't allowed to have people to my house without a parent and had two younger brothers that would have ratted me out in a second if I had tried. I wasn't allowed to car date. I wasn't allowed to have or participate in co-ed sleepovers. If I had a boy over to my house we had to stay in the common areas of the home. Perhaps even if one has those urges, the alternative is not to teach them it is ok to give into them as long as they do it safely, it is not to provide the opportunity for them to give into them.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Well, I find it offensive that you'd leave your child unprotected by that knowledge, especially since the cost of that STD or pregnancy is fairly likely to fall on the rest of us taxpayers. I guess we can both keep our fingers crossed that your kid, unlike so many others cursed with puritanical parents who failed to arm them with knowledge, doesn't become a statistic.
I'm by no means a puritanical parent. And dont think to take it upon yourself to assume for me or my child. You'll certainly have to bear no such thing. And i find the intimation patently offensive.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Indeed. There is more to them having sex than just their urges as well. How about parenting in general. I can't even imagine how I could have had sex at that age. I wasn't allowed to be at a friend's house without their parent, I wasn't allowed to have people to my house without a parent and had two younger brothers that would have ratted me out in a second if I had tried. I wasn't allowed to car date. I wasn't allowed to have or participate in co-ed sleepovers. If I had a boy over to my house we had to stay in the common areas of the home. Perhaps even if one has those urges, the alternative is not to teach them it is ok to give into them as long as they do it safely, it is not to provide the opportunity for them to give into them.
some apparently feel the need to cast their diminished capabilities as relates parenting upon others.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Well, I find it offensive that you'd leave your child unprotected by that knowledge, especially since the cost of that STD or pregnancy is fairly likely to fall on the rest of us taxpayers. I guess we can both keep our fingers crossed that your kid, unlike so many others cursed with puritanical parents who failed to arm them with knowledge, doesn't become a statistic.

I mean, WTF? You dont know me from adam, nor what I will, may, or have instilled in my kid in any regard or aspect of parenting whatsoever.

rest easy....no such thing will happen, and if by some stroke of happenstance anything of the kind occurs...you'll bear no dime of mine.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
The risk of me having to bear that cost has somewhat declined thanks to Obamacare. If your kid gets AIDS because he didn't know about condoms, the huge cost of that should theoretically fall on an insurer now, instead of flowing directly to the taxpayer. But even that eventually comes back to the rest of us. Insurance costs are linked to pay-outs, and if you've got more people running up big bills on anti-AIDS drugs because their parents never told them how to protect themselves from HIV, it'll mean higher insurance premiums for everyone else. Meanwhile, if your kid has a kid, someone's going to have to support that child, and if your kid doesn't have the means, and you can't fill the gap, the taxpayer will be doing it by way of welfare programs.

Splendid. Sad part is you offend by taking liberties in assuming such things about my kid in particular...even by way of example.

My kid'll be just fine, and no person will bear that dime but me. That is, should such an alternate universe ever unfold, which it will not....because i'm by no means an incapable parent.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
I certainly don't know you. I'm just judging by what you posted, which makes you sound like a horrible parent, at least on the topic of dealing with sexuality. You may actually be a good parent, for all I know. I can only go by what I read.

Why, because I dont posit promiscuity and irresponsibility as the baseline assumption for kids that age?

i think the question of who is a bad parent rests elsewhere.
 

connieb

Senator
The risk of me having to bear that cost has somewhat declined thanks to Obamacare. If your kid gets AIDS because he didn't know about condoms, the huge cost of that should theoretically fall on an insurer now, instead of flowing directly to the taxpayer. But even that eventually comes back to the rest of us. Insurance costs are linked to pay-outs, and if you've got more people running up big bills on anti-AIDS drugs because their parents never told them how to protect themselves from HIV, it'll mean higher insurance premiums for everyone else. Meanwhile, if your kid has a kid, someone's going to have to support that child, and if your kid doesn't have the means, and you can't fill the gap, the taxpayer will be doing it by way of welfare programs.
Which is exactly why conservatives do not advocate for those types of social safetynet programs. They allow the irresponsible to pass their burdens on to others instead of suffering the consequences of their own bad parenting and their own bad behavior.
Since, I find the attitude that one can shift the burden of their bad behavior on to others abhorrent, rest assured, that no child of mine will be on the dole.
 

bdtex

Administrator
Staff member
Somehow, this strikes me as hilarious... "PackageFront Technology?" LOLOLOL


A Scandinavian men's underwear brand named Comfyballs simply will not fly in America, says the U.S. Patent and Trade Office.

The agency has denied the Norwegian company's application to register the trademark in the U.S., calling the name 'vulgar.'

The company was born in 2013 and quickly moved to the UK, New Zealand and Australia where it promises its underwear--designed with PackageFront technology--reduces heat while allowing for freer movement.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868788/No-Comfyballs-America-Patent-office-says-Norwegian-men-s-underwear-trademark-vulgar-sale-U-S.html#ixzz3LX88ldC4
Boy did this thread drift off course or what?:D
 
Neutral is just the facts and only the facts. Discussing why an when and if you are ready are VALUE judgments. That is between the parent and their children to discuss. By presenting them as if they are something the child should be considering even if they have not thus far considered the activity - is tantamount to endorsing at least beginning to think about the activity. I have nothing against discussing the cold hard medical facts of procreation. I do not believe that school is where kids should be taught or encouraged to contemplate their sexuality.
I think the nuanced difference being missed here is EXPECTATION.

One way of teaching expects children to not or participate little in sexual activity. The other way of teaching says we expect you to screw around. Have at and have fun this way.
 
Somehow, this strikes me as hilarious... "PackageFront Technology?" LOLOLOL


A Scandinavian men's underwear brand named Comfyballs simply will not fly in America, says the U.S. Patent and Trade Office.

The agency has denied the Norwegian company's application to register the trademark in the U.S., calling the name 'vulgar.'

The company was born in 2013 and quickly moved to the UK, New Zealand and Australia where it promises its underwear--designed with PackageFront technology--reduces heat while allowing for freer movement.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2868788/No-Comfyballs-America-Patent-office-says-Norwegian-men-s-underwear-trademark-vulgar-sale-U-S.html#ixzz3LX88ldC4
 

Barbella

Senator
Check the stats. Lots of kids that age get knocked up or get STDs. It was worse in the past, when frank sex ed was less common, and it remains worse in Bible Belt states where prudery continues to put children at risk. Our model should be places like the Netherlands, with very frank and open sex education, and resulting teen pregnancy and STD prevalence rates far below ours.

You may be right about your granddaughter. She may be sexually and emotionally stunted, retaining the mindset and hormones of a young child even as she moves into puberty. But if you're wrong, and her actual urges are different from those she chooses to share with Grandma, you'd better hope she has the knowledge to keep herself safe.
Are you [Unwelcome language removed] kidding me? You've got balls... My granddaughter is sexually and emotionally stunted, because she's not interested in having sex at 12?

Get lost. You're an arrogant fool, nothing else.
 

Mr. Friscus

Governor
A former bad-boy with a criminal past who mellowed with age, expressed regret for troubling aspects of his past, and was embraced by a president. Something tells me if he wore a cowboy hat, the right wing wouldn't be hyperventilating about it. Maybe Jay-Z should change his name to Merle, affect a twang, and develop vetiligo.
A. What did Merle say that is on par at all with Jay-Z's lyrical library?

B. Assigning some panicky adjective such as "hyperventilating" doesn't change much. Wouldn't GWB be castrated if he did what Obama did as in the scenario I laid out? I think you know he would have been, as would any person who has been alive in the past 20 years... and you'd probably be not only labeling the vulgar country artist as what he was, but also asking what this implies about then-President Bush.

C. As far as the "right wing" and "hyperventilating", there is certainly shock that Obama could support such a self-described "animal", but oddly this isn't even a huge issue, as it can't go anywhere as long as all of the Obama voters in the media don't ask him about it.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Are you [Unwelcome language removed] kidding me? You've got balls... My granddaughter is sexually and emotionally stunted, because she's not interested in having sex at 12?

Get lost. You're an arrogant fool, nothing else.
Just so you know, kids bullshit their elders' brains out about such matters.

;-)
 
Top