How can you say it sends out the wrong message?

 

 

 

If anything its telling them that they agree that they can't stop them, but they can provide protection.

 

 

 

Better than not providing protection at all, cause they'd do it anyway.

 

 

 

Instead of teaching youngsters about the responsibilities both emotionally and morally that come about from entering into a sexual relationship, sex education generally focuses on the physical aspect of sex; STDs, the Reproductive Systems and the act itself. Something that is IMO the most important activity that one can engage in reduced to diagrams on a piece of paper and scare tactics from teachers too scared (or unwilling) to bring matters of faith and/or spirituality into the discussion for fear of the political correctness brigade.

 

 

 

In conjunction with this, people of all ages are subjected to a huge amount of sexual images from the media and television. Programs objectifying either gender and trivialising sex (Sex and the City for example) have further bridged the gap of understanding of alot of the younger generations. This has seen a massive increase in recent years and only looks like getting worse.

 

 

 

Sexual education needs a more holistic approach, evidence of this is shown in the Netherlands where teen pregnancy rates are one (if not the) lowest in Europe. They have a very liberal attitude towards sex but their sexual education programs are forward thinking and far more engaging than those in England.

 

 

 

When people are better informed and have a more mature attitude towards sex, things like this tend to happen less. Statistical evidence for this can easily be found online, you need not take my word for it.

 

 

 

Telling someone they shouldn't have sex and then giving them free condoms won't change their attitude towards the act itself. The money spent subsidising all those free condoms is better spent elsewhere.

 

 

 

Education.

 

 

 

+1. :thumbup:

How can you say it sends out the wrong message?

 

 

 

If anything its telling them that they agree that they can't stop them, but they can provide protection.

 

 

 

Better than not providing protection at all, cause they'd do it anyway.

 

 

 

Instead of teaching youngsters about the responsibilities both emotionally and morally that come about from entering into a sexual relationship, sex education generally focuses on the physical aspect of sex; STDs, the Reproductive Systems and the act itself. Something that is IMO the most important activity that one can engage in reduced to diagrams on a piece of paper and scare tactics from teachers too scared (or unwilling) to bring matters of faith and/or spirituality into the discussion for fear of the political correctness brigade.

 

 

 

In conjunction with this, people of all ages are subjected to a huge amount of sexual images from the media and television. Programs objectifying either gender and trivialising sex (Sex and the City for example) have further bridged the gap of understanding of alot of the younger generations. This has seen a massive increase in recent years and only looks like getting worse.

 

 

 

Sexual education needs a more holistic approach, evidence of this is shown in the Netherlands where teen pregnancy rates are one (if not the) lowest in Europe. They have a very liberal attitude towards sex but their sexual education programs are forward thinking and far more engaging than those in England.

 

 

 

When people are better informed and have a more mature attitude towards sex, things like this tend to happen less. Statistical evidence for this can easily be found online, you need not take my word for it.

 

 

 

Telling someone they shouldn't have sex and then giving them free condoms won't change their attitude towards the act itself. The money spent subsidising all those free condoms is better spent elsewhere.

 

 

 

Education.

 

 

 

+1. :thumbup:

 

 

 

+1

How can you say it sends out the wrong message?

 

 

 

If anything its telling them that they agree that they can't stop them, but they can provide protection.

 

 

 

Better than not providing protection at all, cause they'd do it anyway.

 

 

 

Instead of teaching youngsters about the responsibilities both emotionally and morally that come about from entering into a sexual relationship, sex education generally focuses on the physical aspect of sex; STDs, the Reproductive Systems and the act itself. Something that is IMO the most important activity that one can engage in reduced to diagrams on a piece of paper and scare tactics from teachers too scared (or unwilling) to bring matters of faith and/or spirituality into the discussion for fear of the political correctness brigade.

 

 

 

In conjunction with this, people of all ages are subjected to a huge amount of sexual images from the media and television. Programs objectifying either gender and trivialising sex (Sex and the City for example) have further bridged the gap of understanding of alot of the younger generations. This has seen a massive increase in recent years and only looks like getting worse.

 

 

 

Sexual education needs a more holistic approach, evidence of this is shown in the Netherlands where teen pregnancy rates are one (if not the) lowest in Europe. They have a very liberal attitude towards sex but their sexual education programs are forward thinking and far more engaging than those in England.

 

 

 

When people are better informed and have a more mature attitude towards sex, things like this tend to happen less. Statistical evidence for this can easily be found online, you need not take my word for it.

 

 

 

Telling someone they shouldn't have sex and then giving them free condoms won't change their attitude towards the act itself. The money spent subsidising all those free condoms is better spent elsewhere.

 

 

 

Education.

 

 

 

+1. :thumbup:

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

+1

How can you say it sends out the wrong message?

 

 

 

If anything its telling them that they agree that they can't stop them, but they can provide protection.

 

 

 

Better than not providing protection at all, cause they'd do it anyway.

 

 

 

Instead of teaching youngsters about the responsibilities both emotionally and morally that come about from entering into a sexual relationship, sex education generally focuses on the physical aspect of sex; STDs, the Reproductive Systems and the act itself. Something that is IMO the most important activity that one can engage in reduced to diagrams on a piece of paper and scare tactics from teachers too scared (or unwilling) to bring matters of faith and/or spirituality into the discussion for fear of the political correctness brigade.

 

 

 

In conjunction with this, people of all ages are subjected to a huge amount of sexual images from the media and television. Programs objectifying either gender and trivialising sex (Sex and the City for example) have further bridged the gap of understanding of alot of the younger generations. This has seen a massive increase in recent years and only looks like getting worse.

 

 

 

Sexual education needs a more holistic approach, evidence of this is shown in the Netherlands where teen pregnancy rates are one (if not the) lowest in Europe. They have a very liberal attitude towards sex but their sexual education programs are forward thinking and far more engaging than those in England.

 

 

 

When people are better informed and have a more mature attitude towards sex, things like this tend to happen less. Statistical evidence for this can easily be found online, you need not take my word for it.

 

 

 

Telling someone they shouldn't have sex and then giving them free condoms won't change their attitude towards the act itself. The money spent subsidising all those free condoms is better spent elsewhere.

 

 

 

Education.

 

 

 

+1. :thumbup:

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

Speaking from a purely scientific point of view, it is fine for humans to have sex as long as they are biologically capable of reproducing. I think the problem is with society. Humans are not seen as mature enough to take care of themselves until 18 (in most countries), but society needs to make the required age for independence much lower.

 

 

 

Nature does not make mistakes (don't mention birth defects and such, as that is a result of poor nutrition of the parents or other outside forces such as radiation poisoning and poor living conditions), though I could argue that some things could have been done better (e.g. why don't all living creatures have the incredible regenerative abilities of salamanders?). However, humans are biologically capable of reproduction at 12-14 for a reason. Age requirements are nothing but inventions of governments due to societal corruption which stemmed from the ignorance of human beings because we're too intelligent (double negative) to leave well enough alone, and dumb down our children, causing these problems.

 

 

 

Also, can't you guys say a bit more than "+1"? >.< I think that to warrant a post your replies should be a bit longer...

Think you guys should read this:

 

 

 

The 13-year-old said to be Britain's youngest father was a victim of a scam devised by his girlfriend's mother to cash in on publicity surrounding the young parents, a family friend has claimed.

 

 

 

Teen mum Chantelle Steadman's mother told her 15-year-old daughter to say Alfie Patten was the father of baby Maisie Roxanne who was born last week, according to a report in The Daily Mail newspaper.

 

 

 

Clive Sim, who says he is a friend of the Steadman's, said Penny Steadman had told her daughter Chantelle to keep quiet about other boys she had slept with because "she knew Alfie being the dad makes a better story".

 

 

 

"I think there's a big scam going on here" he was quoted as saying.

 

 

 

The claims come amid media attention surrounding the two families, and speculation that Maisie's father could be one of up to six boys Chantelle had slept with.

 

 

 

Alfie has agreed to take a DNA test to prove he is the father, with several television outlets reported to be offering up to $180,000 to broadcast the results.

 

 

 

Trainee chef Richard Goodsell, 16, has come forward claiming he is Maisies father as has 14-year-old Tyler Barker.

 

 

 

Chantelle is reportedly "distraught" at the allegations and says she lost her virginity to Alfie.

 

 

 

Both Chantelle's and Alfie's parents are thought to have already earned thousands of dollars in media deals since The Sun broke the story last week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/754189 ... ily-friend

This is seriously just gettin better and better.

Indeed it does, I would not at all be surprised if it wasnt the 13 year old.

Indeed it does, I would not at all be surprised if it wasnt the 13 year old.

 

And he was twelve when he screwed her.

Chantelle is reportedly "distraught" at the allegations and says she lost her virginity to Alfie.

 

 

 

 

For some reason that sentence made me LOL :lol:

 

 

 

You can tell from the picture she isnt a looker, but jeez you have to have some boundries! How lustful and lonely was she to have... relations... with a twelve year old!?

 

 

 

Which is worse, Alfie being the father, or Alfie not being the father and this all being a scam on the mother's part?

I do not blame parents for this, the two that had Unprotected sex are the ones to be at fault

 

 

 

alot of teens do it, juts some are actually smarter and some actually dumb enough to risk the consequences

I do not blame parents for this, the two that had Unprotected sex are the ones to be at fault

 

I don't know if you've read...but it said the parents gave consent to have sex with him.

I do not blame parents for this, the two that had Unprotected sex are the ones to be at fault

 

I don't know if you've read...but it said the parents gave consent to have sex with him.

 

 

 

But he could have used protection or birth control,

 

thats ignorance on the teens part,

 

 

 

sure everyone love to have sex, but if your dumb, u get what u get...

I do not blame parents for this, the two that had Unprotected sex are the ones to be at fault

 

I don't know if you've read...but it said the parents gave consent to have sex with him.

 

 

 

Doesn't work like that. Otherwise Someone could goto their 5yo Daughtr/Son and say "Have sex with your neighbour. we consent it"

 

 

 

Consent needs to be given by the INDIVIDUAL, the only excemptions i guess are tribes in very empty ares such as Africa. City wise like England it needs to be by him/her. Plus if they DID give consent why the hell didnt they tell him/her about the risks?? eh!? eh!? :-k

Guys....its the Sun. It's a tabloid. It's fake...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 724616.ece

 

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/280873

 

 

 

I think it's pretty real.

Alfie, who is just 4ft tall, hasn't yet hit puberty and was 12 when the baby was conceived

 

Right, how could he be the father? :roll:

Alfie, who is just 4ft tall, hasn't yet hit puberty and was 12 when the baby was conceived

 

Right, how could he be the father? :roll:

 

 

 

Christ, how the [bleep] did we miss that?

that is honestly disturbing

I do not blame parents for this, the two that had Unprotected sex are the ones to be at fault

 

 

 

alot of teens do it, juts some are actually smarter and some actually dumb enough to risk the consequences

 

Well, the parents brought the kids up to be like that.

I do not blame parents for this, the two that had Unprotected sex are the ones to be at fault

 

 

 

alot of teens do it, juts some are actually smarter and some actually dumb enough to risk the consequences

 

Well, the parents brought the kids up to be like that.

 

 

 

I think you should blame the parents. Alfie has about 8 other siblings, and I think that all of them are half brothers/sister. His dad doesn't live at home, and thinks that making babies is good money (That makes perfect sense :| )

 

Alfie doesn't go to school because his parents can't afford it.

 

Tell you something already?

 

Alfie doesn't go to school because his parents can't afford it.

 

Tell you something already?

 

 

 

Of course! What outstanding pillars of the community they are! I would never dream of letting my children take advantage of the free schooling system, and hang around with those snotty middle class commoners! No Sir! Alfie im sure will recieve only the very best in education, in about 20 years when his benefit allowance pays for a year of private schooling!

I do not blame parents for this, the two that had Unprotected sex are the ones to be at fault

 

 

 

alot of teens do it, juts some are actually smarter and some actually dumb enough to risk the consequences

 

Well, the parents brought the kids up to be like that.

 

 

 

I think you should blame the parents. Alfie has about 8 other siblings, and I think that all of them are half brothers/sister. His dad doesn't live at home, and thinks that making babies is good money (That makes perfect sense :| )

 

Alfie doesn't go to school because his parents can't afford it.

 

Tell you something already?

 

 

 

Tbh, you cannot blame parents for that

 

 

 

I was born to wait till i was married, i didn't but my know you can't do anythign about it, Sex is natural, teens and adults love it

Alfie, who is just 4ft tall, hasn't yet hit puberty and was 12 when the baby was conceived

 

Right, how could he be the father? :roll:

 

 

 

Christ, how the [bleep] did we miss that?

 

Maybe because he isn't the father?

 

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -21227974/

Hardly suprising. A 13 year old, having sex with her once, doesn't provide that much of a likelyhood of getting her pregnant. Sucks for him though, believing a child is his and suddenly finding out that it is not, shame on the older girl big-time.

Alfie, who is just 4ft tall, hasn't yet hit puberty and was 12 when the baby was conceived

 

Right, how could he be the father? :roll:

 

 

 

Christ, how the [bleep] did we miss that?

 

Maybe because he isn't the father?

 

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -21227974/

 

 

 

Well, its pretty obvious from the fact that he had not hit puberty.

 

 

 

I read the article it was quoted from, and must have just skipped over that part. So really, as soon as that was said, it was clear he was NOT the father. What a waste of £300 on a DNA test.