Skip to comments.Parents outraged after sex education program warns girls as young as 12 not to hug boys (Australia)
Posted on 07/03/2015 3:19:33 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Full title: 'Having multiple sex partners is almost like tape that loses its stickiness': Parents outraged after sex education program warns girls as young as 12 not to hug boys
Parents have been left outraged after students as young as 12 have been exposed to material which claims women 'lose their stickiness' like tape after becoming involved with multiple sexual partners.
Female schoolchildren attending Fairhills High School in Knoxfield, east of Melbourne came home with pamphlets distributed at the school by a youth group called Epic Youth, a branch of the Pentecostal CityLife megachurch.
The sex education information also states that men may judge women on their choice of clothing and claimed females are needier than males due to a hormone released in their brains when they touch.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Interesting illustration. Gets the point across quite well.
But why the outrage?
Loose gals lose the stickiness?
Thanks for the heads up.. Maybe next time.
Because it puts forth the “controversial” notion that males and females are different.
I have no idea, it’s like the dumbest reaction I have heard ever since witch hunts. STDs are among the most preventable diseases. Not airborne or resilient on surfaces like influenza or measles. So what is wrong with saying that keeping your pool of sex partners small is wrong? Do these parents.
Wow who knew girls lose their “stickiness”.
If you pour a little honey on them before....nevermind.
Parents outraged because they want their kids to be easy?
I don’t buy it.
it’s against feminism, which teaches young women that the ultimate empowerment is to slut around early and often with as many men (and preferable also women) as she can. so the feminists are up in arms that anyone would dare suggest that to be bad. but i do think there is some research going on in the field of psychology that says that the more sexual partners a woman has (especially early in life), the harder it will be for her to pair bond later in life. and also the less likely she will be able to stay monogamous when she does. it turns out that maybe too much sexual exposure (promiscuity, porn, etc.) can and does re-wire our brains in negative ways. i really should google this and pull up some scientific links (at least as scientific is as possible with psychology), but i honestly can’t be bothered right now. this is not an area that i know much about, but i have seen and made mental notes of some of this stuff that i’ve run across on the periphery and it honestly makes sense in my gut. not only from what i see as the culture changes as porn, promiscuity, homosexuality, etc. become more acceptable to much of the population, but also in the context of the goals of the cultural marxists who are pushing all of this. i think there may well be something interesting to be found in this research that shows indisputably that feminism/cultural marxism has real biological consequences that lead to higher levels of unhappiness amongst both men and women.
The tape analogy is a good one.
When tape loses its stickiness, you throw it away.
It’s in opposition to the indoctrination:
“This kind of blasé sexual conduct seemed to be normal, expected even. As a fine arts student in college, everyone was having sex with everyone. These were moneyed kids at a prestigious university who prided themselves on their orgies and drugs and STDs. A friend in my photography class took portraits of all the random guys she slept with, something like 27, while another girl took a video of herself f-—ing 100 guys in an hour. This was art. This was empowerment. This was feminist, or so they said. And I adopted that perspective as my own, without any serious critical inquiry.”
The orgy prude: How I finally admitted I dont like meaningless, porn-star sex (Salon)
How did I miss out on this???
There are legitimate reasons both moral and healthwise for people not to have multiple sex partners, losing stickiness is not one of them. It may not be possible to discuss those reasons in an age appropriate manner with twelve year olds.
It may be true that women will be judged for what they wear but making a foolish choice does not mean a criminal is not responsible for his or her own behavior. Nothing wrong with explaining why certain modes of dress are not suitable in some situations or for some ages. To imply males are not responsible for self control is not.
Most of all though it should not be the place of schools to impose values on children that are contrary to that of the parents unless such values are criminal or would cause great immediate harm to the child. For me that means schools should stay out of sex ed completely except for the basic biology. The moral implications of sexual behavior is for the parents to teach their children.
While girls lose their stickiness, on the plus side, boys who hug girls lose their ickiness!
Kids are exposed to 1000 acts of sex and licentiousness every day on TV, internet, and every else in society - and people protest when they are given one small voice of the opposite?