Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
tymmur

Sex ed banned in Japanese schools

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, phantomJS said:

Absolutely true, but not the point of my post.

I agree with most of what you said and never believed that this kind of class will really turn this situation around.

The point of my post is there is a group of people who can / may greatly benefits from this kind of class, and the resources it takes up is rather small considering the potential benefits it has (at the very least. it will definitely improve the situation, no matter how small). Don't think it's worth it to ban the class just because of their hypocrisy ideals

Fair enough, I see what you are saying. Banning it as a whole certainly may not be a good idea as it does help some students out. 

Most of my stance on the issue comes from the immense discomfort I remember from my own health classes in high school.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated the first post to mention the concept of safe days doesn't work as birth control. There is currently a class lawsuit about this in America because some paid app claimed to schedule safe and unsafe days and now the pregnant women sue for paying for something, which didn't work.

8 hours ago, Norleas said:

Correct me if im wrong, but in Japan the age of consent is 13, right? So they already can have consensual sex by law, but is too early to learn how to protect yourself. Ok.

The age of consent is 13 by national law. Prefectures are allowed to raise this number, but not lower. Most if not all prefectures have set the age to 18, including Tokyo, which is why mentioning 13 seems a bit odd.

 

The manga Futari Ecchi is about a newly wed couple trying to figure out the sex life, which is both funny and educational. It includes a bunch of surveys regarding the topic and one of them is about the age of the first time (women only). Apparently the lowest answer is 12. Even if that is below the age of consent, it's old enough to risk pregnancy. Based on this, it would make sense to say something around the age of 12, even if the legal limit is 18.

 

What you teach the children is also important. According to Futari Ecchi, UK increased sex ed and the teenagers became more sexual active. It offers no explanation, but odds are the teaching material said something like just do it as long as you use condoms.

37 minutes ago, Zalor said:

Some people say this is why "good sex education" is important, but I argue that all sex education is inherently going to be ineffective. The reason me and my friends goofed off is because it is a super awkward subject to talk about and we really didn't want want to engage in it.

So you are saying that it's better to hide that sex leads to pregnancy and that it's better that everybody learn that from their own experience? Yes it's easily awkward and can be hard to figure out how to say something age appropriate. However it can be done if somebody in the education system wants it to work. However there are examples of politicians deciding sex ed should be present, but not how and then somebody else figures out that implementing it means teaching how to have same sex action or even "avoid pregnancy. Use animals instead" (that one got banned the day politicians learned about it).

12 minutes ago, Zalor said:

Most people learn what they know about sex from their peers and friends when growing up. Kids talk about this stuff all the time.

Sure, people will talk about nice boobs, good ass and how it's supposed to get inside. People will however not talk about STDs, pregnancies and all the other problems. The last time I had sex ed was around age 16. By this time school was no longer mandatory, the stupid kids were all gone and the biology curriculum included how and why different methods of birth control works and how safe they are (hint: none is 100% safe). Not only was it part of the finals, it was actually really interesting. Part of the myth busting in the first post is based on knowledge I learned at this point.

Around the age of where puberty starts for most people, the topic was what happens when it does. A little talked about fact is that it's completely normal for both genders to have growing breasts. One gender will continue to grow them while the other will see them vanish over time in most cases. Also breasts start out as a hard lump and will not become soft until they reach a certain size.

 

In other words sex ed should be about how to protect against STDs, unwanted pregnancies, consequences regarding those topics, bodily development (am I normal?). It should not be about the fun stuff as people will figure out how to do that on their own. Just as with any other class, it could be interesting or boring depending on how the teacher handles the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, tymmur said:

So you are saying that it's better to hide that sex leads to pregnancy and that it's better that everybody learn that from their own experience? Yes it's easily awkward and can be hard to figure out how to say something age appropriate. However it can be done if somebody in the education system wants it to work. However there are examples of politicians deciding sex ed should be present, but not how and then somebody else figures out that implementing it means teaching how to have same sex action or even "avoid pregnancy. Use animals instead" (that one got banned the day politicians learned about it).

In other words sex ed should be about how to protect against STDs, unwanted pregnancies, consequences regarding those topics, bodily development (am I normal?). It should not be about the fun stuff as people will figure out how to do that on their own. Just as with any other class, it could be interesting or boring depending on how the teacher handles the subject.

I think the point of his posts are that sex-education aren't even close to being quite-effective in tackling the high number of school pregnancy (which I agree) and not on the technical aspect of sex education.

For the highlighted part, I'm pretty sure a lot of teenagers are not paying as much attention to these as you (lolz) in sex-ed class or are plain bored of it as I'm pretty sure a lot of them already knows. Sex is a hot topic for teens and as such I'm pretty sure they would have found other ways to get more info on it elsewhere.

Besides, if the sex ed class is only good for these points:

1) Sex leads to pregnancy. Unwanted and unprepared pregnancy leads to a lot of problems

2) Unprotected sex may leads to sexually transmitted diseases, which will ruin or even end your life

then, i question how effective is it as I'm pretty sure most teens only need common sense and some curiosity to know about it for themselves.

To be effective at communicating the seriousness of 1) and 2), you are going to have to delve a lot deeper into them, but then it will fall into the realm of preaching, and most anyone, let alone teens. will be unable to stay awake and listen, lolz

 

Ofc, I still support sex-ed classes being around for reasons mentioned in my earlier posts :P

 

Edited by phantomJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I updated the first post.

11 hours ago, tymmur said:

Fake facts commonly believed even though I'm not sure I have seen them in VNs, yet fits the topic:

- condoms protect against STDs. They do not protect against those transmitted by skin contact

- shaving improve hygiene - it protects against easily treatable STDs while increase the risk of infection and hard/impossible to treat STDs

I realized this would be needed when I read this:

1 hour ago, phantomJS said:

Besides, if the sex ed class is only good for these points:

1) Sex leads to pregnancy. Unwanted and unprepared pregnancy leads to a lot of problems

2) Unprotected sex may leads to sexually transmitted diseases, which will ruin or even end your life

then, i question how effective is it as I'm pretty sure most teens only need common sense and some curiosity to know about it for themselves.

2) has been proven to not spread automatically to curious teens because if it did, then I wouldn't have had to update the first post. The shaving thing is actually a big issue as girls in the gym tell each other to shave because unshaven are repulsive and spread disease. They tell that everybody have to shave to remove the risk of spreading stuff in the showers. It's totally made up and the shaving actually send a significant number of girls to the doctor due to the resulting skin infections. Those infections can appear due to being cut or lack of air between skin and cloth, which traps sweat and as such is not in the STD family, though it can be equally serious.

 

Let's be honest. How many of you knew that there exist incurable skin transferred STDs, which condoms do not protect against and can in some cases move from the skin and go inside where it turns women barren? It's information like this, which needs to be in sex ed even if it might not be interesting at the time.

 

1 hour ago, phantomJS said:

I'm pretty sure a lot of teenagers are not paying as much attention to these as you (lolz) in sex-ed class

I didn't get into the university of my choice in first attempt by not paying attention in class :rolleyes:just don't mention art class or anything related to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, tymmur said:

Let's be honest. How many of you knew that there exist incurable skin transferred STDs, which condoms do not protect against and can in some cases move from the skin and go inside where it turns women barren? It's information like this, which needs to be in sex ed even if it might not be interesting at the time.

Well, if it's not interesting, it's unlikely to capture the attention of teens nor will it register in their brains.

Tbh, I don't have much of a clue how Sex Ed classes in the US are, but i imagine these classes generally fall into one of the 2 following categories (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

1) the class is boring as well, and most of the student sleeps through it

2) in an attempt to make it interesting to the majority of the class, the teacher attempts to joke during his/her lecture, but the focus will be on the humor instead of the material itself

I question how effective is the class if one of the above is true.

 

Also, people don't generally care much about consequences unless they experienced it in some sort of form before, especially not when the only source of this comes from a class which they may very well not pay attention to.  I don't imagine most will care much too when told 'here exist incurable skin transferred STDs, which condoms do not protect against and can in some cases move from the skin and go inside where it turns women barren' (your comment on UK sex ed in one your earlier post proves my point), although it might make them more cautious. Sex occurs in 2 conditions; non-consensual (rape) or consensual. For rape, nth much needs to be said. As for consensual, I believe most will be slept up by the moment to care (too) much about what the sex ed teaches.

 

Actually, the technical aspects and consequences of sex shouldn't be taught in sex ed class (as they are boring as hell) and can probably be summarise into biology or social studies classes (or something like that) I believe (I think those are better ways) . I think sex ed should be all these:

Quote

1) Sex leads to pregnancy. Unwanted and unprepared pregnancy leads to a lot of problems

2) Unprotected sex may leads to sexually transmitted diseases, which will ruin or even end your life

  aka, all about responsible sex. In this case, I believe

3 hours ago, Zalor said:

 I argue that all sex education is inherently going to be ineffective

or, not very effective at all.

 

Anyway, despite all of these, I believe you make a lot of valid points. Thumbs up:thumbsup:

Edited by phantomJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I'd like to address the issue of shyness and shame. I've been reading in this topic that some people attribute western culture and religion an effect in the japanese mentality. I beg to differ.

While it's undeniably the case that sex is a taboo in the catholic religion, I believe it's a symptom rather than a cause. It can't be coincidental that in the great majority of cultures on earth, as isolated as they might be, people show shame and cover up their genitals. What's more, if you analyze language, you see that it's almost a universal that a big part of the insults and derogatory terms come from the words for sexual organs or the action of sexual intercourse (probably the second most frequent origin, following scatological procedence)  . That goes to show that there's some psycological trait in human beings that links sex with shame and filthiness. Why is this? I have no idea. There's probably some darwinian reason, but I personally don't know. Perhaps some biologist here can shed some light on this?

Anyway, regarding the sex ed banning in Japan... it saddens me. The severe effects of desinformation are very concerning, of course, but even beyond that, it's obvious that avoiding the topic so blatantly does not any good at all nor leads to a process of normalization of what should be regarded as a normal physiological human behaviour, such as eating or sleeping. It might be true that there's something in our psyche that generates that inclination, but the same could be said about xenophobia, and yet we still try to fight it with reason and science and do our best to erradicate it. We humans are always so proud to claim that we overcame our natural instincts with our mind. Well, failing to acknowledge sex education as something as serious and relevant for our life as nutritional information could be is definitely a step in the wrong direction. 

Edited by Thyndd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thyndd said:

First of all I'd like to address the issue of shyness and shame. I've been reading in this topic that some people attribute western culture and religion an effect in the japanese mentality. I beg to differ.

While it's undeniably the case that sex is a taboo in the catholic religion, I believe it's a symptom rather than a cause. It can't be coincidental that in the great majority of cultures on earth, as isolated as they might be, people show shame and cover up their genitals. What's more, if you analyze language, you see that it's almost a universal that a big part of the insults and derogatory terms come from the words for sexual organs or the action of sexual intercourse (probably the second most frequent origin, following scatological procedence)  . That goes to show that there's some psycological trait in human beings that links sex with shame and filthiness. Why is this? I have no idea. There's probably some darwinian reason, but I personally don't know. Perhaps some biologist here can shed some light on this?

I have my biases as a sociologist, but I would arguement that it's more likely connected to the fact that most cultures had to regulate reproduction in various ways in order to survive, creating certain taboos and limitations. There's also the problem of power - mostly male domination and the problem of guaranteeing fatherhood. Possibly partially instinctive, I guess, as many animals don't tolerate offspring from other males, but definitely enchanced through culture, with all the strict rules of chastity and virginity that applied exclusively, or mostly towards women. There are, or maybe, there were cultures that didn't assiociate sexuality with shame (described for example by Bronislaw Malinowski, one of the pioneers of modern anthropology) - many of them were colonized and their attitudes changes through christianisation and such... 

2 minutes ago, Thyndd said:

Anyway, regarding the sex ed banning in Japan... it saddens me. The sever effects of desinformation are very concerning, of course, but even beyond that, it's obvious that avoiding the topic so blatantly does not any good at all nor leads to a process of normalization of what should be regarded as a normal physiological human behaviour, such as eating or sleeping. It might be true that there's something in our psyche that generates that inclination, but the same could be said about xenophobia, and yet we still try to fight it with reason and science and do our best to erradicate it. We humans are always so proud to say that we overcame our natural instincts with our mind. Well, failing to acknowledge sex education as something as serious and relevant for our life as nutritional information could be is definitely a step in the wrong direction. 

As much as we could discuss the quality and effectiveness of sex ed, there are more than enough prooffs that pushing the topic out of school or learning backward, repressive attitudes is counter-productive and definitely it saddens me too whenever I see it. It's not a coinsidence that the southern US states that push abstinence-only education have rampant rates of child pregnancy and STDs. Even if it's hard and uncomfortable, teaching teeangers about their sexuality is very damn important - if 5-10% of that information gets through, it can save some people from literal tragedies. And as long as prudish, close-minded morons bar it from entering schools, we can't possibly work on making it more comfortable and effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

As much as we could discuss the quality and effectiveness of sex ed

As for that, I'm supportive of the biology approach. You don't achieve much more than ackwardness and shy laughs if you attempt to teach teenagers how to put on a condom, tbh (I know that from experience, since that's what happened when I was in middle-school). I think it's much more productive to teach them what STDs are from a microbiology point of view (the same way you would teach what the influenza virus is and how it spreads), how fecundation works and the steps of the whole process. The more "practical" information is very accessible nowadays. Making them conscious of the risks from a scientific and strictly formal point of view should be good enough (or at least better than the alternative...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teaching realistic sexual education in high school should be essential I think. It boggles my mind that people in developed countries(I'm including the states of course) still have such fucked up notions on sex. Leaving it up to the parents or their peers is a mistake in my opinion. Ideally yeah parents should talk about sex with their kid but odds are a lot of them won't and a lot of the ones that do will try to enforce the abstinence only myth. On the flipside peers might certainly talk about sex but they'll probably regurgitate whatever popular myths about sex that's around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

57 minutes ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

I have my biases as a sociologist, but I would arguement that it's more likely connected to the fact that most cultures had to regulate reproduction in various ways in order to survive, creating certain taboos and limitations. There's also the problem of power - mostly male domination and the problem of guaranteeing fatherhood. Possibly partially instinctive, I guess, as many animals don't tolerate offspring from other males, but definitely enchanced through culture, with all the strict rules of chastity and virginity that applied exclusively, or mostly towards women. There are, or maybe, there were cultures that didn't assiociate sexuality with shame (described for example by Bronislaw Malinowski, one of the pioneers of modern anthropology) - many of them were colonized and their attitudes changes through christianisation and such... 

Comparing human sperm production to that of other primates it is likely that early humans have had social monogamy, while having sexual polygamy. If there is no social monogamy at all the sperm production should be much larger like for instance that of the chimpanzee, this is due to there being higher competition among sperm. If a male had no competition for sperm they would only need to produce a small amount of sperm, this can be seen in gorillas. We humans are at a level between these extreemes which means there were likely pair bonding, but that the females and males also had sex outside of that pair. For the male the general adaptation to this problem other than higher sperm production is to punish or leave the female if the female cheats with the male. Since humans have men partisipating in childcare it could be better evolutionary speaking to leave the female if they are likely to find a more faithful female. I would assume that this causes there to be a biological reason as to why males then feel really bad if they are cheated on. Then let us add this feeling into a society controlled by males. Since the males really hate the feeling of being cheated on they impose rules to prevent this. This takes shape in rules that limit the female's chance of having sex with anyone other than her social mate and gives strict punishment if she cheats. This is probably the basics of it then when you add more complex societies often with one or a few males leading you probably get many odd rules based on how those few people themselves think that become the norm and thus lives on from generation to generation. This is at least how I figure this is likely to have happened.

Edited by bakauchuujin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Thyndd said:

First of all I'd like to address the issue of shyness and shame. I've been reading in this topic that some people attribute western culture and religion an effect in the japanese mentality. I beg to differ.

While it's undeniably the case that sex is a taboo in the catholic religion, I believe it's a symptom rather than a cause. It can't be coincidental that in the great majority of cultures on earth, as isolated as they might be, people show shame and cover up their genitals. What's more, if you analyze language, you see that it's almost a universal that a big part of the insults and derogatory terms come from the words for sexual organs or the action of sexual intercourse (probably the second most frequent origin, following scatological procedence)  . That goes to show that there's some psycological trait in human beings that links sex with shame and filthiness. Why is this? I have no idea. There's probably some darwinian reason, but I personally don't know. Perhaps some biologist here can shed some light on this?

While I'm not a biologist, I can easily come up with a few theories. Some pack animals have rules where only the leader of each gender is allowed to reproduce, which is an ok survival strategy if the food supply doesn't support more offspring. It's also survival of the fittest. However lower ranking animals want some action as well and to get that, they have to do it when nobody will notice. Some animals, like wolves, will downright kill for doing it without permission.

Another possible reason is while it's easy to identify the mother of a child, the father can only be sure by completely excluding other men. Ancient Greece had the law that if a man found his wife's lover doing it with his wife, he could legally kill the lover. Getting people to cover up could be a mean to not make married women "advertise" towards other men.

While I would not single out Catholicism, it may not be completely innocent. If we look at written records from when Christianity clashed with vikings, the monks flamed the barbaric people who had no problem with public nudity. It seems that they used clothing due to temperature, but didn't mind nudity when bathing in public, or possibly even in general. When the vikings converted at the end of the viking era, the church tried to get rid of the nudity right away. Sounds fairly familiar to the Americans arriving in Japan and trying to get onsens banned due to nudity.

47 minutes ago, Thyndd said:

Anyway, regarding the sex ed banning in Japan... it saddens me. The sever effects of desinformation are very concerning, of course, but even beyond that, it's obvious that avoiding the topic so blatantly does not any good at all nor leads to a process of normalization of what should be regarded as a normal physiological human behaviour, such as eating or sleeping. It might be true that there's something in our psyche that generates that inclination, but the same could be said about xenophobia, and yet we still try to fight it with reason and science and do our best to erradicate it. We humans are always so proud to say that we overcame our natural instincts with our mind. Well, failing to acknowledge sex education as something as serious and relevant for our life as nutritional information could be is definitely a step in the wrong direction. 

I totally agree. Not telling what is normal tend to make disillusions about normal, which then give rise to perversions. Humans have reproduced since the dawn of time and as such is completely natural for us. What tells us apart from animals is reason and the ability to share experience to prevent each individual from learning the hard way. Sometimes learning the hard way will not give you another chance. One thing, which women seem to have to learn the hard way is that birth control pills cause blood clots and are suspected of causing cancer. This seems to not be taught anywhere and often skipped at the doctor when asking for pills, yet we have the knowledge that they aren't without risks.

27 minutes ago, Thyndd said:

As for that, I'm supportive of the biology approach. You don't achieve much more than ackwardness and shy laughs if you attempt to teach teenagers how to put on a condom, tbh (I know that from experience, since that's what happened when I was in middle-school). I think it's much more productive to teach them what STDs are from a microbiology point of view (the same way you would teach what the influenza virus is and how it spreads), how fecundation works and the steps of the whole process. The more "practical" information is very accessible nowadays. Making them conscious of the risks from a scientific and strictly formal point of view should be good enough (or at least better than the alternative...).

I agree and disagree at the same time. Studies have shown that it a couple use condoms correctly every time, the risk of a pregnancy is 2%/year. If they use it like people normally use them, the risk increases to 10%. Education, written guide or something could be useful. I'm not saying we should have children putting them on dummies, but at the same time we shouldn't say it's so simple that they figure it out on their own.

Apart from that, I agree. It should be a topic, which is taught in biology and in some way distant itself from the fact that it's about humans and become more fact based than... well genital based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tymmur said:

While I would not single out Catholicism, it may not be completely innocent. If we look at written records from when Christianity clashed with vikings, the monks flamed the barbaric people who had no problem with public nudity. It seems that they used clothing due to temperature, but didn't mind nudity when bathing in public, or possibly even in general. When the vikings converted at the end of the viking era, the church tried to get rid of the nudity right away. Sounds fairly familiar to the Americans arriving in Japan and trying to get onsens banned due to nudity.

Oh yeah, definitely. Catholicism ideology with respect to sexuality is way more restrictive than the one found in other cultures, that's for sure. What I meant is that that strict mindset itself that arouse in this particular religion is but a consequence of that psycological inclination that surfaces slightly different (or arguably sometimes at all) in different cultures.

19 minutes ago, tymmur said:

I agree and disagree at the same time. Studies have shown that it a couple use condoms correctly every time, the risk of a pregnancy is 2%/year. If they use it like people normally use them, the risk increases to 10%. Education, written guide or something could be useful. I'm not saying we should have children putting them on dummies, but at the same time we shouldn't say it's so simple that they figure it out on their own.

Ha, they had us putting them on a banana :leecher: Go figure.

Yep, I totally agree that it would be phenomenal is such topics could be addressed naturally; but as it is, I think the only way to make teenagers take it seriously and not laugh it off is to approach it as all the other sciences in school. It is my hope that once they are well aware of why they should be concerned about the topic, they will research the needed information for practical usage in due time. Maybe not, and I'm too optimistic, but that'd be my best bet.

Edited by Thyndd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ranzo said:

Ideally yeah parents should talk about sex with their kid but odds are a lot of them won't and a lot of the ones that do will try to enforce the abstinence only myth.

I'm also aware of one other type of parent advice, which is "go out into the world and get experienced with both genders". That's kind of messed up to say to a 14 year old, but I know one case where it happened (yes, below age of consent). I'm just happy I didn't have to deal with advice like that when I was at that age.

 

I'm not sure about the "abstinence only myth" though. My general advice for any age is "don't do it unless you are ready to accept the child". No birth control is 100% safe and abortion is generally more problematic than people make it out to be. The hormones have started to prepare the brain mentally for motherhood and suddenly turning this off is a shock to the body. There is a risk of becoming barren. It's also quite painful (or can be). Like that isn't bad enough, late abortion (after 12 weeks) requires the woman to give birth, which is supposedly a horrible experience.

I know it sounds boring and likely not something you would expect from somebody who is into 18+ VNs, but real life isn't a game and shouldn't be treated like one. If you can't reload if you make a wrong decision, you better protect yourself from wrong decisions and risks in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thyndd said:

Ha, they had us putting them on a banana :leecher: Go figure.

:wahaha: I honestly thought it was a joke and nobody actually did that for real.

 

My last teacher in sex ed once told he was sent a sample of a product to be used for teaching purposes. It was model genitals of both genders. He was about to just ignore it when he started wondering about the size. He called the company and they said they intensionally made it at 70% of life size in order to not scare the girls and to not give the boys inferior complexes. He thought it was so stupid and hilarious that he just had to share it. My take on it is show life size. If you think it's too big compared to yourself, then you know that you are still too small to start being sexually active. It's that simple and there is no reason to hide such a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think learning about STDs on school is pretty valuable for some induviduals. For instance just saying sex can give you aids to someone not that smart who is 13 or 14 years old will probably not be enough to make them think about the fact that people who have had sex lots of times without protection with a lot of other people are the ones that are much more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases. It should probably be made clear how much higher the risk is when having casual sex with someone who also is likely to have had casual sex with someone else before is as opposed to someone in a relationship where they stay faithful to each other. While for adults this is pretty easy to understand, there are probably many in their puberty who don't really think about it unless they are told about it.

Edited by bakauchuujin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is high schoolers are are going to fuck it's going to happen. Ideally yeah people shouldn't have sex until they are fully mature enough to be aware of the implications of it. Generally that's not going to happen. Young adults should be fully aware of STDS and how they can be transmitted. They should also learn about birth control. Sure you can say it's not 100% effective and that's true but 98% effectiveness for a good condom and 99% effectiveness for a IUD is pretty damn close. Same with the birth control pill or shot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tokyo's mayor is a famous reactionary nationalist and a 'conservative' 'family values' supporter, and that board is loaded with his people... so this shouldn't surprise anyone, in retrospect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zalor said:

Most people learn what they know about sex from their peers and friends when growing up. Kids talk about this stuff all the time. They learn it from other kids, or their older siblings, and then spread it to their friends. Any kid with a normal social life growing up will first learn about sex in this way. This is also how knowledge has spread about sex for most of human history. 

On the contrary, sex education is a very uncomfortable and unnatural way to relay this information, and it often has the opposite effect than what it intends. While I don't know the statistic myself, I would really like to know the percentage of teenage pregnancies that happened where the girl (and guy for that matter) really didn't know that sex leads to babies. Again, I really don't know the answer, but I would be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority were perfectly aware of what they were doing. There is no cure for teenage impulsiveness other than maybe proper discipline. And that is up to the parents.

Well shoot, my classmates were morons in that case. They didn't even know anything about sex. They just bragged about it like most teen bros did at that age.

So in health class we dedicated half a semester to teaching about safe sex in ninth grade. Tests, quizzes, videos,  demonstrations, and yes, a project. My class did it all. It was all part of the anatomy section. Hell I even learn about female genital mutilation. (Off topic, but still kinda messed up)

Before that, in 7th and 8th grade we had monthly 90 minute seminars where leaders of the neighborhood would hold forums for both girls and boys about teen sex. The leader would stop class to bring in all the bros from all the classes to sit down with a bro who got a chick prego, or got an STI etc. They did the same with the girls in their presentations. 

6th Grade sex ed was a joke, a complete joke like you mentioned Zalor. But, however it was effective. Why?

Because it got us actually talking about it. Before that, sex is was a complete mystery to me as a kid. When I learned of the word "virgin", from one of my idiot friends fourth grade. They told me it meant that someone who just haven't did "it" What was "it"? They couldn't say. Because they either didn't know or they didn't want to get in trouble. Those who spoke of the s-word got suspended or got detention. They would say that it'll be on your permanent record. Some even got expelled for saying that they did it with girl X.

I recommend teaching them at 12 years of age like me with "good sex education''. Which is rather "Thorough sex education."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tymmur said:

The manga Futari Ecchi is about a newly wed couple trying to figure out the sex life, which is both funny and educational. It includes a bunch of surveys regarding the topic and one of them is about the age of the first time (women only). Apparently the lowest answer is 12. Even if that is below the age of consent, it's old enough to risk pregnancy. Based on this, it would make sense to say something around the age of 12, even if the legal limit is 18.

1 hour ago, Happiness+ said:

I recommend teaching them at 12 years of age like me with "good sex education''. Which is rather "Thorough sex education."

Completely different reasoning, yet both posts end up with the age of 12 as the starting point. Quite interesting, particularly since nobody else has mentioned any age for a starting point.

1 hour ago, Happiness+ said:

Well shoot, my classmates were morons in that case. They didn't even know anything about sex. They just bragged about it like most teen bros did at that age.

Somebody told me that some people much older than us did something disgusting. It was about boys inserting the peepee into the butt of girls. Spoiler: it turns out that those girls actually have another hole dedicated to the activity in question, but none of us knew that at the time :wahaha:

Another equally good one was later when somebody had convinced me that girls are dignified people with no knowledge or interest in sex and it's very important to never make them aware of it. My young mind never considered how it would be possible to have sex with a girl without her knowing about sex. However to be fair, I didn't really have an interest at the time.

There are other gems like "everybody in 9th grade have sex all the time" and "private schools hire prostitutes for sex ed so the rich kids can try sex".

Come to think of it, I don't think my peers have ever told me anything, which turned out to be correct.

 

Come to think of it, it actually matches VNs pretty well. Girls have pure souls with no knowledge of sex, the protagonist don't know which hole to use, everybody have sex all the time and rich kids can buy people of the opposite gender and use them as toys. Apparently the education process of listening to my peers messed me up good and forced me into the world of VNs :gasp:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clephas said:

Tokyo's mayor is a famous reactionary nationalist and a 'conservative' 'family values' supporter, and that board is loaded with his people... so this shouldn't surprise anyone, in retrospect. 

So conservative family values are teenage pregnancies. Got it.

51 minutes ago, xGreyHound said:

Are you saying those facts are true or not?

There are almost 50 posts, many of them with various degree of facts. You have to be more specific. If you are asking me about my posts specifically, then yes what I have written is to the best of my knowledge true.

1 hour ago, Happiness+ said:

I even learn about female genital mutilation. (Off topic, but still kinda messed up)

Indeed it is and so is it for males. On top of extreme pain, bleeding for days, risk of completely destroying the penis, there is a risk of infection. The survival rate is not 100%. Assuming everything goes according to the plan, it will result in a grown up penis head, which has lost sensitivity. To compensate for this, the movement during intercourse have to be way more powerful. Women are build for the force normally used by a penis protected by foreskin, meaning when exposed to the forces without it, it actually hurts. This mean removing the foreskin from a young boy will over time inflict pain to one or more women repeatably.

There are plenty of sources against doing stuff to females, but way less regarding males, which is why I decided to write about males here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tymmur said:

So conservative family values are teenage pregnancies. Got it.

 

For a certain type of 'family values' male who believes women should spend their lives solely on raising children, yes.  Teenage pregnancies are something he can shake his head woefully at (like so many abstinence morons here) while stating his regrets that they didn't just refrain from having sex in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Clephas said:

For a certain type of 'family values' male who believes women should spend their lives solely on raising children, yes.  Teenage pregnancies are something he can shake his head woefully at (like so many abstinence morons here) while stating his regrets that they didn't just refrain from having sex in the first place.

I was being sarcastic. I expected something like that. If the politicians want the women at home, then why don't they fix the problem that the rent in Tokyo requires two incomes? If he is against girls having sex, then why not tell them so? I wouldn't blame this on being either nationalist or conservative, but rather being an arrogant elitist with no regard for the general population.

 

I could say a lot more about nationalists, conservatives and pro/con having a mother at home raising children. However that would go off topic and they are such big topics that it would likely require multiple threads and I have no intension of starting those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...