The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > When 'Safe Schools' sexualises children, should we be surprised about school porn rings? > Comments

When 'Safe Schools' sexualises children, should we be surprised about school porn rings? : Comments

By Wendy Francis, published 22/8/2016

The program includes a 'role-playing game' for 12 year olds which includes students taking on the character of a bisexual who has had 15 sexual partners.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I agree entirely about the school program. But, 'respecting' girls who pose for pictures? Really?
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 22 August 2016 10:05:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kiddy porn is hardly a new phenomena, but existed centuries before safe schools, in different guises?

It's really time we stopped making such an issue over tissue. Time to develop a normal healthy attitude to sex and sexuality.
Of course that will outrage some parents and religious control freaks, with all manner of (dirty minded) unnatural sexual hangups? [And if the cap fits?]

Safe schools just doesn't seualize children or teach them stuff most don't already know? Ignorance is the mother and father of perversion and loveless sex that is forced on the other, via cultural medieval norms, including genital mutilation, child brides, and virtual sexual slavery, (FORCED MARRIAGE) normality in some fully imported alien cultures?

I believe the source of most of this confected outrage comes from folk whose own (unhealthy) attitude to normal healthy sex and sexual development, is fundamentally warped askew, are the ones having all the (dirty minded) problems!?

Teaching kids to respect the rights of others, in all sexual situations; and that love, respect and sex are fundamentally entwined, is hardly welcomed in some (stiff necked) communities?

Role playing just apes what perfectly normal kids do already, but eliminates some of the abysmal (adult) ignorance that usually surrounds this part of normal human relations? And that normality may well include folks with more than 15 partners?

Different folks have different appetites or unmet need? I don't have a patently confected problem with that or different strokes.

This is Australia, not ancient archaic Abyssinia.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 22 August 2016 11:21:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yep our secularist society has created an environment of sexualising everything that moves from a very young age and are dumb enough to act surprised when young girls post themselves nude on camera and men perve. Yep they can demand 'respect' however unsafe schools programs that deny kids the right to be kids but instead shove perversion in their face in order to make a few adults feel comfortable results in these outcomes. You are so right Wendy. Its not rocket science.
Posted by runner, Monday, 22 August 2016 11:22:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you for real lady where have you been hiding since 1900 I suggest you go back there
Posted by John Ryan, Monday, 22 August 2016 11:35:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 'new creative image' of sex is anything is permissible and it is perfectly to be thrust upon 'mature age kids' whatever age that is and 'celebrated' - the next agenda after the same sex marriage legislation gets a big tick will likely be dispensing of the legal 'taboo' [how outmoded] of having sex with children under 16 even including those of your own or related family members . . . any traditional family-minder 'frogs' are either not noticing the water is getting hotter and/or just don't have any sense nor leaders of any persuasion to lead them to lobby 'protect my seat in parliament whatever the vocal minority want' politicians!So-called leaders who may have more conservative ideas of sexuality and love [whatever that is now supposed to be defined as] need to get out of the pews and into the real world of the news to make any difference . . . . but I aren't holding my breath!
Posted by Citizens Initiated Action, Monday, 22 August 2016 12:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What complete rot, lies, half truths and religious oppression. I bet this women is upset by public breast feeding as well.
As other have noted it's not the stone age anymore

Me thinks the Christians don't his this because if we educate our kids about sex they'll realize the touching and games they play priest, pastors and church leaders are not so innocent.

but hey what would you expect form a group that thinks women can be bought for 200 foreskins of the enemies
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 22 August 2016 1:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan, kiddie porn may well have been around for a long time but it was certainly never deemed acceptable or healthy. In fact men who indulged in this pastime were labelled sick, perverted deviants.
So let's not try and pretend otherwise just to suit the perversions of a minority.
As for teaching young people that frequent casual sex is either emotionally healthy or safe, well obviously you haven't seen the latest figures on Std's, in particular, those that are now becoming antibiotic resistant. Nor have you seen the articles written by doctors on the physical damage occurring from frequent anal sex.
The effect of porn on young people is now starting to show a lot of negative effects, especially the view that violent, degrading sex is normal and is leading to distorted expectations in young people, something backed up by psychologists and therapists.
Children are not naturally sexual beings unless they are exposed to sexual activity and
the increasing number of boys committing rape at ages as young as ten is testimony to the negative effects of over sexualisation of children.
Posted by Big Nana, Monday, 22 August 2016 1:22:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What else would you expect if you send your child to a state-sponsored school? Those who provide the money are obviously also those who set the curriculum.

Politicians discovered that the more citizens indulge in sex, the less vigour they have left to revolt against them.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 22 August 2016 1:57:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Big nana, you're making stuff up. Whatever you may discuss at your local church group is bye the bye. Lets actually deal with the facts.

"Children are not naturally sexual beings unless they are exposed to sexual activity"

Gee there would be a large number of doctors and biologists that would disagree.

I think the religious nuts would love to wind the clock back to them having free reign to rape our kids and teach everyone else that sex is bad and you shouldn't do unless your trying to have a baby.

If any of the religious posters on this site that are opposed to the safe schools training, can provide a link to a respected non religious body that deals with childhood development that has significant concerns with the safe schools program that would be great.

I bet they can't.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 22 August 2016 1:59:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that this whole campaign is run by paedophiles as a
recruitment exercise.
It would certainly make their grooming a lot easier.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 22 August 2016 2:02:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber:

Your religious bigotry is showing. Everyone who has a disagreement with the safe schools program must automatically be religious? Or else they must be able to point to a "respected non religious body that deals with childhood development".

They are not allowed to have an opinion themselves without it being supported by some body? Their own experiences as parents or teachers or just human beings are not worthy of being heard? What are you afraid of - the truth emerging?

You should take your bigotry where it belongs. Dismissing arguments before they have even been heard just on the basis of them coming from religious people or non-religious people without some authority is bigotry plain and simple. Who would listen to someone arguing in favour of safe schools who obviously has such bigotry ingrained within them? Any sort of bigot is not the right person to be listened to when the well-being of children is at stake.

Either stick to the arguments about the safe schools program or shut up. This is not the place to be airing you petty bigotry. We are here to discuss important issues and not your neurotic need to deride religious people.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 22 August 2016 4:07:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well expressed phanto. I score your sentiment 10 out of 10.

With regard to the article, I agree with the writer. In my opinion the Safe (Sex) Schools program should be shut down and those involved should be prosecuted as paedophiles.

End of story.
Posted by voxUnius, Monday, 22 August 2016 4:28:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B

"I believe the source of most of this confected outrage comes from folk whose own (unhealthy) attitude to normal healthy sex and sexual development, is fundamentally warped askew, are the ones having all the (dirty minded) problems!?"

So what does that contribute to the debate? If they have no good arguments against the safe schools program then why not just ignore them? Or if you like present an argument against their arguments. It does not matter where their arguments come from any more than it matters where yours come from. The only thing that matters is the strength of the arguments on either side. Policy decisions are made in favour of the best arguments and not the background of the arguer.

You are just displaying your own resentment towards religious people. No one is interested in your resentment only your ideas. You should go and ask a professional to help you with your resentment. That is not the purpose of this forum.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 22 August 2016 4:29:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sexuality is now being portrayed as an battle against adversity.

Everyone has to have a story about how they were able to overcome the oppression and victimisation.

And how they were able to come out, and tell the world they are non-binary, or gay, or LDBT (or is it LBTG or whatever).

In my time, boys wanted to play with balls, and kick them through goal posts, or they were attracted to objects that went round, such as wheels on skateboard and pushbikes.

But now, boys have to be attracted to girls, or attracted to other boys, or boys who think they are girls, or girls who think they are boys, or girls who might be attracted to boys if they were not so attracted to girls who think they are boys.

I sense none of it is healthy.

As for teachers being able to teach students about sex...what a joke.

The teachers can hardly teach the students how to read and write.

I would not rely on teachers to satisfactorily teach students anything at all.

As for social media, it should be banned for anyone under the age of 18, and carry a warning that no social benefits have ever been found for anyone using american spyware.
Posted by interactive, Monday, 22 August 2016 4:33:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hang on, weren't we at one point agreeing that the sexual diversity crowd were a bunch of insufferable prigs and pearl clutching wowsers?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Monday, 22 August 2016 4:50:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was going to say that common decency didn't necessarily depend on Christianity or religiosity. However, perhaps it does depend on Christian teaching, because Christianity gets slammed by the atheistic idealogues every time this subject is raised.

Perhaps the Christian-haters are, indeed, perverts and lovers of child porn (which is illegal by the way). One such poster slams the writer for being back in "1900". Sexualisation of children, child pornography and filth is just as obnoxious and perverted as it was in 1900.

As for children being describe as "sexual beings", rubbish. Any of these unnamed 'doctors' (of what?) are perverts themselves. Kinsey, the best known sexual know-all and social manipulator, was a pervert in his private life. He, and probably many of the 'experts" today, try to fashion society around their own deviance. Children are innocent. Just because they unwittingly do things that some pervert regards as an invitation does not alter the fact.

All this sexual rubbish in schools is merely part of the socialist plan. Marxism instructs that before you can take over completly, you have to take over the culture. Their means are education at public schools run by Marxist unions; through the left media, and through entertainment, with the help of left wing actors and writers. See enough of it in movies, read it in books, learn it at school, and it becomes the 'norm'. Take over plan succesful. All that is needed then, is to keep bad-mouthing conservatives and asserting that they are out of date - behind the times. Cynical, evil manipulation in the name of the Marxist utopia.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 22 August 2016 5:18:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yeah I remember a few years ago the lefties were all calling taking nude shots of young girls art. Even Turnbull backed the artist. Somehow they believe they are exempt from the adamic nature however their practices prove otherwise.Not content to trash their own morality they want to influence kids instead of allowing them to be kids. They then discover some form of morality when a sick catholic priest molests a child. Oh well to the lefties its all about sides unfortunately as they have no real moral basis to draw from (except from the likes of the very warped Kinsley as has already been pointed out).
Posted by runner, Monday, 22 August 2016 5:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber, you really need to get out more. Or do more Googling. The internet is full of articles from medical groups concerned about the early sexualisation of children
In WA a report was tabled in Parliament in 2013 about the early sexualisation of children,,but perhaps religion has snuck into parliamentary reports as well eh?
Even in the past few months there have been media reports of sexualised behaviour in early primary kids, raising a lot of concern from parents and therapists.
Religion has nothing to do with the enjoyment of normal healthy sex, done at an appropriate age.
What we don't need is kids forced into believing random casual sex is the norm or that it will ever provide the pleasure that comes from sex with a person you have a strong emotional attachment to.
Posted by Big Nana, Monday, 22 August 2016 5:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So I guess no can supply a link to a non religious body who has significant concerns with the safe school program.

Big nana asserting there are a producing one are two different things.

As for religious bigotry, that is rich, can you let me know a non religious organisation protecting pedo's?
Posted by cornonacob, Monday, 22 August 2016 7:20:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'
As for religious bigotry, that is rich, can you let me know a non religious organisation protecting pedo's'

cornonacob

u obviously have not heard of Jimmy Saville and the bbc. Also do a little research and you will find that one of the architects of ' safe' schools in Canada is in prison for molesting kids. Just does not suite your narrative cornonacob.
Posted by runner, Monday, 22 August 2016 7:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cornonacob

Most psychologists seem to be concerned about the sexualisation of children, particularly the sexualisation of girls.

And they are concerned about "the prevalence of sexualised images of children and early adolescents in the media" and concerned about "exploitation of children, particularly girls, as sexual objects".

https://www.psychology.org.au/community/public-interest/sexualisation/

But now, we have programs in schools that emphasis that children know their sexual identity, and they should be sexually attractive to others.

So is this emphasis on sexual identity and being sexually attractive a part of the sexualisation of children?

Absolutely.

Sexual identity and sexuality should not be much of an interest to children at all.

When teachers can improve the marks of Australian children in areas such as literacy and maths, then they might be trusted to teach children about sex and sexual identity.

Until then....
Posted by interactive, Monday, 22 August 2016 7:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cornonacob:

"So I guess no can supply a link to a non religious body who has significant concerns with the safe school program. "

Why do you want one? Does it prove something? Do you only listen to bodies? Are you afraid the truth might come from individuals or thousands of parents or other teachers? Are you closed off to all those possibilities where the truth might be found? It is not a very reasonable way to search for what is best when you begin to limit who is allowed to contribute to the debate.

"As for religious bigotry, that is rich, can you let me know a non religious organisation protecting pedo's?"

We are discussing what type of education is best for children. We are not discussing pedophilia or the covering up of pedophilia. If you want to change the subject then perhaps you could make your own thread in the general discussion.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 22 August 2016 8:22:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is effing sick on so many levels, sorry.
"The program includes a "role-playing game" for 12 year olds which includes students taking on the character of a bisexual who has had 15 sexual partners and rarely practices safe sex, because she is often drunk when she has sex."

Role playing game?
As in 'ENCOURAGE' them to step into those shoes?
This isn't an exercise in building tolerance to others or a healthy attitude to sex.
How do you pretend to do something you've never actually done?
Therefore this 'role playing game' is encouraging 12 year olds to take part in multi-gender sex with numerous partners whilst grossly underaged.
This is an effort to normalise sex with children and whether intended or not will lead to pedophiles eventually arguing for the right to legally be able have to have sex with kids.

I really don't get where anyone thinks its ok to promote explicit sexual knowledge to underage kids:
1. Who aren't legally allowed to have sex.
2. Who aren't legally allowed to view explicit sexual content.
3. And do so without parental consent.

If anyone else did this (including parents themselves) they would be visited by the DOCS or the Police.
What happened to R18+ or did that just get thrown out with today's easy internet accessibility to porn?

I must be getting old... the damn countries being run by communists and peedo's and it makes me want to throw up.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 22 August 2016 10:47:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//As for teaching young people that frequent casual sex is either emotionally healthy//

What is emotionally unhealthy about casual sex? Everyone behaves differently; it's not unhealthy unless their behaviour causes dysfunction or distress.

//What we don't need is kids forced into believing random casual sex is the norm or that it will ever provide the pleasure that comes from sex with a person you have a strong emotional attachment to.//

How do you know what will provide pleasure to other people, Big Nana? There are people out there who genuinely seem to enjoy stupid and dangerous pastimes like parkour and BASE jumping. I'm scared of heights and you'd never catch me doing it. But that doesn't mean other people won't enjoy it. Different strokes for different folks.

//How do you pretend to do something you've never actually done?//

See, this is what television does to people. I bet AC's parents just plonked him in front of the box and never gave him books to read.

It's called an imagination, AC. Everyone has one, even you. It may not be very highly developed, but it's what allows you to imagine that vaccines cause peanut allergies, and that Nazis didn't slaughter Jews, and all the other unicorns you believe in.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 5:03:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People with very good imaginations get jobs in the creative arts. For example, you may have seen the actor Mark Hamill pretending to lift an X-Wing fighter out of the swamps of the planet Dagobah using the power of the Force. Given that the Force, the planet Dagobah and X-Wing fighters are all made up, it is reasonable to assume that Mark Hamill was pretending to do something he'd never actually done. Amazingly, he managed to pull of this incredible feat that is pretending to do something he'd never actually done. Who'd'a thunk it? And he wasn't even that good of an actor ;)

People with extraordinary imaginations write conspiracy theories.

//Therefore this 'role playing game' is encouraging 12 year olds to take part in multi-gender sex with numerous partners whilst grossly underaged.//

In the same way that his role in 'The Empire Strikes Back' encouraged Mark Hamill to hitch a ride on a space probe to Dagobah, so that he could actually use the Force to lift an X-Wing out of a swamp?

Get off the ice, dude.

//All this sexual rubbish in schools is merely part of the socialist plan.//

//the damn countries being run by communists//

Yeah, of course. Because it's not 2016, the cold war never ended, and there are still reds under your beds.

For heaven's sake... I know the 80's were great, but it's time to move on, guys. Come up out of the bunkers and enjoy the 21st century.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 5:06:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Tony,

«There are people out there who genuinely seem to enjoy stupid and dangerous pastimes»

Yes, and discard any possibility for the wisdom of ages and its transmission. Enjoy first, then suffer many times over later.

So, you decided that nobody can teach you, that you must try everything yourself, put your hand in the fire because you cannot believe what some silly old tottering grandfather mumbles about the experience of generations. They tell you that if you do such-and-such then later you will be sorry - but you laugh. OK, then burn your hand.

And this time I am not going to try to dissuade you: if you send your poor child to a government-funded school to have their head stuffed there with their rubbish, paid for with our stolen tax-money, then I suppose that you both deserve to suffer as your child will come out of that school fooler than how they came in.

«enjoy the 21st century»

No pleasure there for me. In my younger years I toyed with the idea of physical immortality, but now I am so glad that I did not pursue that path and will not be around to see most of this ignominious century. You will not need to suffer my admonitions for long now.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 7:58:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Toni,
I'm totally flattered by the trouble you've gone to on this. Lol

Clearly Mark Hammil pretending to lift his x-wing fighter out of the swamp with the power of the 'force' is not in any way different whatsoever to 12 year old kids 'role playing' bisexuals who have frequent drunken unprotected sex with numerous partners...

But for all your trouble you're almost winning me over just a little anyway.
...Almost.

In some ways, having them talk about all this stuff openly BEFORE they get a little older and potentially find themselves in that situation does have a lot of merit. I'll give you that.
(But parents should really be the ones to managing this responsibility, not governments and other kids in classrooms.)
And I'll also accept that there's really no easy way to hide porn from kids anymore in the information age.

So why do I object?
Maybe part of me thinks they should be left to figure things out in their own time rather than have all this stuff pushed on them.
It's as if 'ding' "You're now of eligible age, time for government sanctioned bisexual sex classes."

The Australian Chinese community came out with an interesting petition today.
"One thing that our migrant communities have in common is that they won't allow anyone interfering with their parental rights, and programs like Safe Schools represent an attack on the rights of all parents..."
The petition says the program "discriminates against children and parents from other cultures who have a view of sexual relationships involving male and female as normative".
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-23/safe-schools-mp-lodges-petition-against-program-signed-by-17000/7777030
I think they make a reasonable argument.

One problem I see however is that gays will simply say they are being discriminated against for being different anyway.
They object to the idea that their behavior is not considered normal and they will always keep pressing the issues further.

Mr Soros' Get-up! crowd would probably find the one single gay chinese kid and make him a poster child of repression at the hands of the shameful and intolerant Chinese community.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 23 August 2016 9:37:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B "I believe the source of most of this confected outrage comes from folk whose own (unhealthy) attitude to normal healthy sex and sexual development, is fundamentally warped askew, are the ones having all the (dirty minded) problems!?"

Bizarre logic. So it's not those who are sexualising children that are warped, rather, it's those who do not want children sexualised that are warped. As I said, bizarre logic
Posted by Aristocrat, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 1:47:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Lavis "Yeah, of course. Because it's not 2016, the cold war never ended, and there are still reds under your beds."

The 'Safe Schools' program was written by those educated in post-structural philosophy, who all lean left socially and economically.

"For heaven's sake... I know the 80's were great, but it's time to move on, guys. Come up out of the bunkers and enjoy the 21st century."

Bizarre. So it's okay to sexualise children because it's "the 21st century"? Is this even an argument? Are you sexually attracted to children? You and Alan B sound like people who need to be kept an eye on.
Posted by Aristocrat, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 1:52:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The program includes a 'role-playing game' for 12 year olds which includes students taking on the character of a bisexual who has had 15 sexual partners."

How can you take on the 'role' of a bisexual? Bisexuality is not a role - it is a set of feelings which you cannot possibly imagine unless you are one. Whenever people of minority sexualities are challenged about their sexuality they admonish their challengers based on the claim that unless you are one you cannot know what it is like so you are not free to have an opinion.

How can anyone who is not bisexual imagine feeling bisexual? It is an insult to bisexuals to suggest that their sexuality is so simplistic that you can easily imagine what it is like.

In a true role play you have to imagine how the person you are playing feels. You can really only do this if you have experienced those feelings - like, fear and anger which everyone can relate to. Only bisexuals can relate to bisexual feelings.

So what is the purpose of these role-playing games? Is it to try and show 12 year olds that bisexuals who have had 15 sexual partners is quite normal? If that is the case then a role play is a very poor method of teaching that truth. Just tell them it is normal. Present it as a fact and give them reasons why it should be accepted as a fact. That is all they need to know.

Perhaps these educators are not trying to teach but to manipulate. They are trying to get kids to feel like a bisexual feels because they are not confident in their reasons for bisexuality. They are trying to avoid having to explain why bisexuality is reasonable. You cannot get anyone to feel like a bisexual.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 9:44:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that one of the reasons that even non-religious people send their children to single sex schools is because they would prefer for their children not to begin exploring their sexuality until they have matriculated as they risk losing interest in their studies as a consequence and wanting to become adults before their legal time.

I attended a single sex school and I would never do it to one of my children out of choice as I terribly missed my favourite female class mates from Primary School.

Now, knowing how I am myself it ought go without saying that I have some concerns regarding my 15 year old daughter. But more than concerned, I want her to be informed and prepared. What I don't want is for her to suddenly find herself at Uni after High School, with a full set of rights and very little frame of reference.

So, whilst the education department hides its reasons, some insight was provided in advance visa vi the sexually explicit content contained within their health classes.

I haven't read the details of the program in question but based on this thread there already appears to be a lot of unjustified anxst. Even so, the lack of transparency generally from the schools is unacceptable and in part why scandals can go for so long unchecked so I can understand people's unease about a sensitive area which is a bit different for each kid and each family.

We need some links to the primary source, and we also need to establish clearly what is meant by the guvment and also what is meant by eveyone else when it comes to what exactly is meant by the verb, "to sexualise."
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 3:50:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//The 'Safe Schools' program was written by those educated in post-structural philosophy, who all lean left socially and economically.//

And all lefties are communists? O....kay.

//So it's okay to sexualise children because it's "the 21st century"? Is this even an argument? Are you sexually attracted to children?//

Wait.. what? Not being a true believer in the International Communist Conspiracy (ICC) makes me a kiddy-fiddler? How is that supposed to work? I fail to see the logical connexion.

Does you think that everybody who isn't paranoid about the ICC is a kiddy-fiddler? Because the statistics don't work out: there are far less paedophiles then there are people who don't suffer from paranoid delusions.

Is there a general rule of thumb that can be applied, whereby disbelief in a particular unicorn is an infallible indicator of some sick sexual perversion? For instance, does a disbelief in David Icke's Reptilian theory indicate herpetophilia (an unhealthy sexual attraction to reptiles)? Does my disbelief that vaccines cause autism make me a necrophile? Does my disbelief that they cause peanut allergies make me a coprophile? Am I a dendrophile if I believe that Saudi Arabian terrorists were responsible for 9/11? If I believe that small quantities of flouride in drinking water a beneficial to public health, am I into BDSM? Am I a rubber-fetishist if I believe that man really did walk on the moon?

In short, if I don't believe in your favourite unicorns, does it necessarily follow that I have some weird paraphilia?

This is your chance to take a free kick, Armchair Critic. I've spent plenty of time rubbishing your favourite unicorns. If you would care to take revenge, you might as well adopt Aristocratic 'logic' and call me a cynophile or whatever.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 4:37:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//there are far less paedophiles then there are people who don't suffer from paranoid delusions//

Sorry, that should have been:

\\there are far fewer paedophiles then there are people who don't suffer from paranoid delusions\\

My bad.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 5:39:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is what I could find that seems relevant, DreamOn...

http://thelookout.sites.go1.com.au/sites/thelookout.sites.go1.com.au/files/Building-Respectful-Relationships.pdf

To help further, the character card for the 17 year old Megan - referred to in the article and the by-line - is on p. 117 as part of the materials for Session 3 of Unit 2 which is for Year 9 students (who are 14-15 years old). The Session is backgrounded on p. 84.

If you're looking for the 'personal ad' activity, that is on p.36.

Wendy Francis writes, "Teachers are warned - "You will need to explain some abbreviations or get the students to work out what they mean.''" but since the one and only abbreviation is self-defined in 'Aust 32 year old, 5’6” with slim build looking for sincere guy with very good sense of humour (VGSH), good communication skills' I don't understand the need, FFS.

Don't forget to follow the instructions...

"A Read the following personal advertisements and discuss the following questions:
• What are older people looking for in a relationship?
• Does what is important in a relationship change as people age?
• Does it change for same-sex relationships?
• Does it change for cultural reasons?
B Write your own personal ad for the perfect partner."
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 6:58:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From WMTrevor's link:

Why do we need the Building Respectful Relationships resource?
The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) commissioned VicHealth to develop a research report, Respectful Relationships Education: Violence Prevention and Respectful Relationships Education in Victorian Secondary Schools.2 This report recommends educating school students about violence, on the basis that ‘schools may be sites of violence perpetration and victimisation’3 , and states that schools are high-risk locations for gender-based violence because of peer influence and a climate and culture of acceptability.

..

• Gender-based violence was estimated to cost the Australian economy a total of $13.6 billion in 2009 (National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children 2009).

• According to police reports, there were 17,964 incidents of sexual assault nationally in 2002. However, according to the ABS Personal Safety Survey (2006), there were 65,700 incidents of sexual assault against women in 2002.

• For same-sex attracted young people (SSAY), 44 per cent reported they had been verbally assaulted, 16 per cent reported they had been physically assaulted, and 74 per cent of the assaults were reported to have happened at school (Hillier et al. 2010).

• Although there has been some attitudinal change towards violence against women, there are still key community attitudes that indicate a level of acceptance (Victorian Health Promotion Foundation 2010).

..

There may be certain assumptions underpinning this:

1. It's not the role of parents to define the sexual orientation of their children.

2. It's ok to be something other than hetero

3. Its not ok to bully, harrass, threaten, or be violent towards anyone on the grounds of their gender or sexual orientation

4. RPG is a useful tool for teaching people firstly to be aware that other people can be quite different and a useful tool for teaching people to empathise with others, which is in and of itself a behavioral modification strategy.
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 9:21:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Putting aside the deviant and perverted nature of the 'Safe Schools' program, the entire curriculum is built on a false premise. Those who wrote the program are trained in post-structural philosophy, which, more or less, reduces all behaviour to a result of 'power structures'; and, that biology itself plays no role and is nothing but another 'discourse of power'.

I urge people to read the literature that 'gender theory' is based on. At no time does it engage with the biological sciences.
Posted by Aristocrat, Thursday, 25 August 2016 8:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy