Entitled Pleasure, the leaflet has been drawn up by NHS Sheffield, but it also being circulated outside the city.
The leaflet carries the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". It also says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?"
...
Mr Slack believes that if teenagers are fully informed about sex and are making their decisions of their own will in a loving relationship, they have an equal right as an adult to an enjoyable sex life.
What constitutes a loving relationship to a teenager? Does sex really need to be marketed to teenage school children, by government health care no less? Maybe this is some sort of reverse psychology that by promoting sex, the authority figures are really hoping that kids rebel and don't have sex? Maybe this is a sign of things to come under the soon to be hijacked US health care system?
So many questions, so few answers. Bizarre, and as mentioned in the article, deplorable.
16 comments:
Yeah, because we all know how responsible teenagers are. They should definitely be encouraged to have more sex with many different people. I don't foresee any problems from that.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
That my friends is what the offspring of liberalism and socialism breeds. Pun intended.
No wonder I'm so fat and have heart problems.
(I can post that because none of you suckas knows who I really am!)
It's always been about breaking down the family unit. And now the adults don't have to worry about being a good example. They've got the government for that. Oh, I'm sorry -- they have Barack and Michelle Obama for that.
Listen to this quote from the July 13, 2009 issue of Time magazine -- article entitled "Why Marriage Matters"
"Think of the touching moments on Inauguration Night, when at ball after ball, crowds of young people swooned at the sight of Barack and Michelle Obama dancing together, artlessing but sincerely and clearly with great affection. . . what we saw reflected in the faces of those awed young people . . . was wonder at the sight of a middle-aged man and woman still together, still in love."
See, he really can save us!! He's got the only healthy marriage since. . . wait a minute, what about George and Laura Bush? Too old? Too white? Not enough socialism?
Sorry, I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. I really don't care about party politics, I'm just tired of how the media idolizes him. He's just a man, for crying out loud. Do you know they are setting up shrines to him on the south side of Tallahassee? People are actually worshiping this man's picture -- lighting candles and praying.
Justus, a small point of clarification may be in order: the leaflet was produced by NHS Sheffield - a local branch of the National Health Services focused on Sheffield and surrounding communities, so this leaflet doesn't represent the sweeping national policy your post implies. Also, the article cited indicates there has been strong adverse reaction to the pamphlet, as one would expect.
If I lived in Sheffield, I'd prefer for NHS-Sheffield to keep its nose out of my bedroom (and my kids' bedroom). But then again, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't rely on NHS-Sheffield to teach my kids about sex and morality.
Here's my final observation: I find it interesting that Justus, Lumbee and Rebbecca have been able to draw connections where none exist. Specifically, the supposed connections between (1) a pamphlet published by a local UK agency devoted to the promotion of healthy living, (2) the US health care system, (3) liberalism, (4) socialism, (5) the "media," (6) the President of the United Sates, and (7) idolatry. Next time, why don't you just come right out and say "Hey y'all I know this is irrelevant to the underlying content, but I'd really like to talk about how pissed off I am about liberals, the 'media,' and Barack Obama." I've got my own views on these issues, but I can't see how they're relevant to the pamphlet.
As for the comment about the Bushes being "too white," I'm not really sure where that comes from. Anyone care to unpack that one for me?
I think Barry Manilow is the one who called Bush "too white".
You sure it wasn't Bob Sura?
HA!!
This is purely a personal perspective.
I grew up in a conservative home in which we (my two older brothers and I) could not even watch movies on TV that even insinuated any sort of sexual conduct (heavy kissing, petting, groping, et al.). I remember my parents pointing out harshly that "we do not watch those things in this home."
I was taught in the streets about masturbation, sex, women, and everything in between. I lost my virginity to a 21-year-old friend of my mother's who was also having sex with two of my neighbors.
Ever since then, I've had tumultuous and ephemeral sexual relationships with ALL TYPES OF WOMEN YOU COULD POSSIBLY CATEGORIZE (size, shape, color, marital status, age, handicapped, et al.). All relationships have been an utter failure.
Would things have been different had I been PROPERLY educated? I believe so. I don't think anyone could get any worse than I have had. And all this because? I was taught by my street friends, not my parents.
Now here's the case of my older brother:
He has had less than five long-term loving relationships. His last relationship is with a woman with whom he is currently married.
Same upbringing, same education, different result: WHY?
I'll give a free dinner at one of your local Ritz-Carlton restaurants to anyone who answers this correctly.
He didn't join a gang?
Nope, but he knew all the wrong types because they were all his friends. But no gang affiliation whatsoever.
Try again.
Because he saw your screw ups and learned vicariously.
Does his wife let him play golf every weekend?
Because he made decisions based on rational thought and did not allow his environment to dictate his actions?
TJ GETS THE FREE DINNER ON ME AT ANY RITZ CARLTON IN THE GREATER WAYNESBORO AREA! Or, if you'd like, you can go as far south as Waycross for the nearest Ritz-Carlton. I really like the one in Vidalia, GA. It is better known as the Friz-Darlin motel.
But seriously, my brother was exposed to a similar environment as I was, but he made choices that he valued properly. I didn't. I smoked cigarettes; he smoked ONE cigarette, coughed, then thought it was a stupid idea. I hung around a group of friends who were considered a gang, and involved myself in their mischievousness; he hung around them too, but did not participate in any of those illegal activities. I did drugs; he chose not to, even though he was offered it almost on a weekly basis. I made bad choices, he didn't (for the most part). But I changed for the better. I made choices that bettered my life, in all respects. And I'm immensely happier for doing so.
Would education about sex have worked for me? Perhaps, but I still make those choices in the end. The education would have enlightened me much more than my friends' teachings, but it was still my choice, just as much as it was my brother's choice.
I'm for sex education, balancing checkbook education, drugs education, physical fitness education, philosophy education, religious education, ethics education, political education, weapons education, driver's education, pretty much ANYTHING education so long as it is acceptable by the parents--they must have the ultimate say as to whether their children would be educated about a particular matter.
WHOO HOO!! I think I stayed there once. They got cable!
I also liked Professor's closing paragraph. Although this may be a little off from the original post, I would state that the problem isn't with the school providing condoms to 10 year olds, it is with the government/schools having to pick up so much responsibility from the parents.
Post a Comment