Page 16 of 41

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:51 am
by Shoju
Fridmarr wrote:I don't know that it's standard. They start with some topics pretty early. Sure the topic of birth control might be more specific, but as a whole sex ed applies fairly universally.


There was a talk in school here when I was in 5th grade (I couldn't tell you the specifics, I wasn't allowed to attend...)
There was the miracle of life movie in 8th grade (I forged my parents signature to go... How they didn't suspect that?)
There was health class in 9th grade.

That was it when I was in school, but I graduated 15 years ago.

For my oldest, it was pretty close to the same, but I know that they offer a few more things in high school now, he just isn't interested in taking them.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:37 pm
by Fridmarr
For the most part I think mine matched that, maybe slight variation on the years but not much (the 5th grade thing was just talking about the changes our bodies were about to go through). We did have some lessons in early elementary school though about appropriate/inappropriate touching and how to handle those situations. In our district those were considered part of sex ed, but I don't know that they really belong in that category. Though beyond that, I'm not sure what sort of education children that young are ready for.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:27 pm
by Darielle
Sex Ed at the school I went to here in NZ was flipping lame - they used it as an excuse to make us watch Titanic. Like wtf?

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:16 pm
by Fridmarr
Lol you seriously watched the titanic? Sadly that wasn't possible for me to watch while in high school. But that probably would have been more enjoyable than what we did watch...

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:23 pm
by Nikachelle
Yeah grades 5 and 6 was more sex anatomy than anything else. But grades 7 and 8 were straight into everything, no holds barred.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:34 pm
by Skye1013
7/8th grade we could take a Health class and I think they split the class between male/female when they got around to certain discussions about genitalia (I think it was an STD lesson.) I could be misremembering as that has been a number of years ago and I generally forget stuff that I don't find particularly interesting.

I don't recall ever having an actual sex ed class.

Edit: Matter of fact, I don't think I'd seen my first condom until after I joined the military...

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:56 pm
by Klaudandus
Image

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:22 pm
by Nikachelle
Skye1013 wrote:7/8th grade we could take a Health class and I think they split the class between male/female when they got around to certain discussions about genitalia (I think it was an STD lesson.) I could be misremembering as that has been a number of years ago and I generally forget stuff that I don't find particularly interesting.

I don't recall ever having an actual sex ed class.

Edit: Matter of fact, I don't think I'd seen my first condom until after I joined the military...

The only class we had split off from the boys was when the teacher had a lesson on tampons that was utterly useless for the guys to attend. Other than that, we had everyone in the room all the time.

But yeah, like I said, everything was discussed. Oral sex. Vanilla sex. Butt sex. I think we even had lessons on how to actually put on condoms properly. Condoms were handed out if you wanted them - although, us all being 13/14 at the time, no one wanted to be caught dead asking a teacher for a condom.

Looking back, and hearing about different countries/cultures, I'm actually pretty impressed that our sex ed was so rigorous and so well explained. They actually taught us so well that we ended up knowing more than our parents did (now THAT was a fun discussion at home... "Dad, how come you don't know what a fallopian tube is? Or a clitoris?").

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:40 pm
by Fridmarr
Skye1013 wrote:7/8th grade we could take a Health class and I think they split the class between male/female when they got around to certain discussions about genitalia (I think it was an STD lesson.) I could be misremembering as that has been a number of years ago and I generally forget stuff that I don't find particularly interesting.

I don't recall ever having an actual sex ed class.

Edit: Matter of fact, I don't think I'd seen my first condom until after I joined the military...

Oh, we never had a whole class for sex ed, it was a topic we covered a few times but not a whole class for a quarter...that's a lot of sex ed.

There was only one time we were separated from the girls and it was the most obnoxious thing ever, and I think it was something that they just tried that year and never did again. They literally brought in these college chicks to cover the topic of date rape. We were right down the road from a college that had a big teacher program, so we often got student teachers about various teaching theories that they were trying, so at first we didn't think anything of it. In hindsight, I really wonder if one of the girls in our class had made an accusation of rape towards one of the boys, and this was one way they chose to address it. Anyhow, it was an epic failure.

They separated the boys and these college chicks who were basically our peers began to lecture us. The lecture was pretty inflammatory and it quickly became apparent that we were being treated like a bunch of thugs. That was just recipe for disaster and things became very heated very quickly. These girls who at first were lecturing us like a bunch adolescents were not at all prepared to be challenged, and they completely lost control.

After that, they addressed the girls in our class about techniques to avoid our advances. They basically told them that the boys in their class were a bunch of immature jerks and none of them should date us. Of course, quite a few of the girls that they were talking to already were dating some of us, and so they got all pissed off too and walked out.

One of the strategies they relayed to the girls was that if the guy said "I'll just put it in for a minute" that the girl should reply with "I'm not a microwave" LOL that became a running joke that still rears its head at reunions.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:56 pm
by Nikachelle
Fridmarr wrote:One of the strategies they relayed to the girls was that if the guy said "I'll just put it in for a minute" that the girl should reply with "I'm not a microwave" LOL that became a running joke that still rears its head at reunions.

That's absolutely hilarious, I love it!

Also, to clarify, our sex ed was always part of our p.e. classes. They usually covered 2-3 weeks of health twice a school year.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:08 am
by KysenMurrin
Hmm, we had lots of stuff spread out all over... IIRC in the last couple years of primary school (age 9-10) they started covering puberty, doing seperate talks for boys and girls. Secondary school every now and then things would come up, for a few lessons in either biology (the anatomical side) or in the 1 hour a week I-can't-remember-the-name class that covered all sorts. By age 13-14 it was pretty much entirely about STDs.

Definately didn't cover different sex acts like Nika says. Probably barely touched on the actual act of sex beyond the basic scientific facts of (vaginal) intercourse.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:18 am
by Darielle
Fridmarr wrote:Lol you seriously watched the titanic? Sadly that wasn't possible for me to watch while in high school. But that probably would have been more enjoyable than what we did watch...


This wasn't even in High School, we were like 11, 10?; but it basically meant we spent 3 hours being bored on the basis of the tiny nude scene being relevant for Sex Ed. Probably the most graphic thing in the entire "course" involved them pointing out ways of contact that are "dangerous" - like good ole penis connecting with anus. Or the condoms they gave us which probably turned into balloons.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:46 am
by Paxen
Paxen wrote:Anyway, I think unfriending people on facebook simply because you disagree with their views is a bit shortsighted. I enjoy watching posts from people I disagree with, even if I think they're retarded. Let's me know I'm not stuck in the internet echo chamber.


And today this pops up on my facebook feed: "Jews: The first biofuel."

Now what do I do :(

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 6:50 am
by Nikachelle
Paxen wrote:
Paxen wrote:Anyway, I think unfriending people on facebook simply because you disagree with their views is a bit shortsighted. I enjoy watching posts from people I disagree with, even if I think they're retarded. Let's me know I'm not stuck in the internet echo chamber.


And today this pops up on my facebook feed: "Jews: The first biofuel."

Now what do I do :(

Eat your words, send your "friend" a scathing message if you so desire, then remove them.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:07 am
by Klaudandus
Paxen wrote:
Paxen wrote:Anyway, I think unfriending people on facebook simply because you disagree with their views is a bit shortsighted. I enjoy watching posts from people I disagree with, even if I think they're retarded. Let's me know I'm not stuck in the internet echo chamber.


And today this pops up on my facebook feed: "Jews: The first biofuel."

Now what do I do :(


Ok... I'm part jewish, and I find that slightly amusing... then again, I'm highly cynical and I make a lot of jokes about myself and my mutt-like ancestry

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:50 am
by Paxen
It's a friend of a friend I've met at a couple of parties. Judging from his normal posting habits he's very fond of offensive humor, and don't give a damn who it offends.

He crossed a line here, though. I'll comment it and see how he reacts.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:25 am
by theckhd
I thought it was funny, but I assumed it was tongue-in-cheek. I guess it really depends on the context. I have a Jewish friend who I can imagine making exactly the same joke.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:37 am
by Klaudandus
theckhd wrote:I thought it was funny, but I assumed it was tongue-in-cheek. I guess it really depends on the context. I have a Jewish friend who I can imagine making exactly the same joke.


Yeah, I pretty much saw it the same way... but like I said, I'm highly cynical =P

Heck, one of the jokes I often make is about us having big noses because air is free...

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:55 am
by Sagara
Heh. It's a bit like the n-word free pass.

A bit like Belgians like to poke fun at their own inept government and them being simpletons.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:56 am
by Paxen
Sure, if he was jewish. He's not, afaik.

Maybe he's as much jewish as I am, with my jewish great-great-something-grandfather.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:06 am
by theckhd
Eh, I've seen comedians that aren't Jewish make "Jew" jokes, white comedians make "Black" jokes, and all sorts of other stuff. It's all about context. You can make fun of the stereotype without actually being offensive if you do it right. Similar to the whole "rape joke" issue. There are ways to do it that are funny, even to victims. The problem is that it takes some skill and thought - you can't just make the most offensive joke you can think of and expect it to go over well. You have to do it in such a way that it doesn't denigrate the target, but empowers and supports them. It's the sort of thing that sets master comedians apart from amateurs.

There was a really good article on the topic right around the time of the "rape joke" fiasco a few months ago. I wish I remembered where I read it, because I'd link it, but it was really interesting.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:09 am
by theckhd
Firefox awesome-bar to the rescue! It was the only result when typing "rape" into the url bar (which is good, I guess?):
http://jezebel.com/5925186/how-to-make-a-rape-joke

I actually agree with Daniel Tosh's sentiment in his shitty back-pedaling tweet ("The point I was making before I was heckled is there are awful things in the world but you can still make jokes about them #deadbabies"). The world is full of terrible things, including rape, and it is okay to joke about them. But the best comics use their art to call bullshit on those terrible parts of life and make them better, not worse. The key—unless you want to be called a garbage-flavored dick on the internet by me and other humans with souls and brains—is to be a responsible person when you construct your jokes. Since the nuances of personal responsibility seem to escape so many people, let's go through it. Let's figure out rape jokes.


Wow, I forgot how much I like this author's prose:
This fetishization of not censoring yourself, of being an "equal-opportunity offender," is bizarre and bad for comedy. When did "not censoring yourself" become a good thing? We censor ourselves all the time, because we are not entitled, sociopathic fucks. Your girlfriend is censoring herself when she says she's okay with you playing Xbox all day. In a way, comedy is censoring yourself—comedy is picking the right words to say to make people laugh. A comic who doesn't censor himself is just a dude yelling. And being an "equal opportunity offender"—as in, "It's okay, because Daniel Tosh makes fun of ALL people: women, men, AIDS victims, dead babies, gay guys, blah blah blah"—falls apart when you remember (as so many of us are forced to all the time) that all people are not in equal positions of power. "Oh, don't worry—I punch everyone in the face! People, baby ducks, a lion, this Easter Island statue, the ocean…" Okay, well that baby duck is dead now. And you're a duck-murderer. It's really easy to believe that "nothing is sacred" when the sanctity of your body and your freedom are never legitimately threatened.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:18 pm
by Paxen
Well, I got a reply. Paraphrased:

Holocaust jokes are fine. Jews are nice people, as long as they're not Israelis/zionists


I guess I'll keep him. I may have overreacted.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:13 pm
by Klaudandus
Image

Re: LGBT rights discussion

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 12:35 am
by Passionario
Paxen wrote:And today this pops up on my facebook feed: "Jews: The first biofuel."(

Image