Davetrials Posted May 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 That's sick....I don't know how they could let themselves have sex at such a young age, let alone get pregnant! I agree that sex ed in Britain is shite...I've only had one sex ed lesson in my life, and I'm 16 next year... ← It says use a condom and wear to stick it, what more can it do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liss Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 I mean by the lack of sex ed....we haven't had a sex ed lesson at all, apart from the one is year 6 which basically told us what was what and what did what.... And sex ed here only teaches what happens and what can happen, rather than more about the emotional consequences of things like underage sex and teen pregnancies..... Liss xxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobnobs Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) I've had loads of sex ed lessons, but i have always known everything they tell me. Personally i think they're just anothing thing people are trying to lay the blame on. I wish there was something that could be done, but whatever someone suggests will always be shouted down because its so far out, which it would have to be to make a difference. Edited May 24, 2005 by Hobnobs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liss Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Exactly, and because of that the whole thing just goes around in circles....and it's not getting resolved..... My opinion anyway... Liss xxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiltop Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 sorry but you dont really need sex education to teach you that if you have sex without a condom or protection you run the risk of having children. blame the lack of sexual education if they want but it is a prety shit excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liss Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 I wasn't blaming sexual education, in fact, if you look at my above post, I was saying how there isn't a single thing or person to blame, its a number of things.... And I was only giving my opinion, I didn't expect a load of criticism....sorry.... Liss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMonkey Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Parental guidance wins in all situations. Has nothing to do with sex ed lessons. Parents don't care kids go tits up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted May 24, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 Its the people they meet in skool, if they meet a whore in year 7 thell be a whore by the time there in year 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrie-Anne Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 We all know what sex is, what it does, and what it can cause, so it doesn't matter about sex ed To be honest, i have had About 2 sex ed classes and we get a whole sex ed day at the end of this term, (6 weeks time) Your parents give you 'the talk' anyway, or they should. You can't really blame anyone, except the girls and the parents. and Nadine, i agree, the thought of something growing inside me makes me cringe! I want to make my own life before bringing another into the world. Kerrie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liss Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 I want to make my own life before bringing a new one into this world I totally agree. That's what life is all about: making a life for yourself, and then preparing to bring another into the world for when you leave the world.....and 12, 14 and 16 is way too young to have a baby: now those girls won't have lives of their own, they'll be consumed by the responsibility of a baby..... Liss xxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pork Pie Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) Like the community service thing theyre thinking of bringing in - they will HATE walking around in orange suits, because they don't look cool. They couldn't care less about doing a bit of community service. Thats what I reckon anyway. ← I can see that becoming 'the in thing' though (Y) "It's cool to do community service and wear a bright suit" :D I really hope that it works though, definitely worth a try. Anyways, as much as I disagree with having a baby at such a young age, I'm sure it doesn't neccisarily mean you'll instantly have no life. You hear of young mothers who have been successful and enjoyed growing up still. I'm sure, if you were to try, you could just adapt your lifestyle around your children, and enjoy your life, but in an ever so slightly different way. Infact, having children at a young age could actually bring you more happiness in some cases. Anyway, Yeah, I disagree and think it's pretty wrong, but what can you do? Oh, wait... Davey Edit: Those Electronic Tag things are becoming a bit cool now aren't they? Edited May 24, 2005 by Dave Gill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMonkey Posted May 24, 2005 Report Share Posted May 24, 2005 I totally agree. That's what life is all about: making a life for yourself, and then preparing to bring another into the world for when you leave the world.....and 12, 14 and 16 is way too young to have a baby: now those girls won't have lives of their own, they'll be consumed by the responsibility of a baby..... Liss xxx ← You're joking right? They won't have any responsibility. It doesn't make any difference to people with low intelligence. To most people on here it would be a huge life change, to them it won't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiltop Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 dont know if anyone saw the program called one life last night on bbc1 but it sort of changed my opinion on this. basically it was about a girl who had a child at 13 and was the diognosed with terminal cancer and died aged 16. basically it was proper upsetting watch a 2 year old kid loose a parent who was (ok a bit of a slag) but amazingly good with the kid and amazingly brave. i sort of came to the opinion that if the parent is willing then they can be fantastic no matter how old they are. it was such an upsetting program as it was a video made for the 2 year old to remeber who her mum was when she had grown up. was absolutely heart wrenching. basically what i am saying is that it aint really our place to judge, ok bringing up a child is something few teenagers can do or could do but there are some who do a bloody god job of it and who are we to comment wether people are wrong or right to bring a child up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyroo Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Apparantly, when Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph were 13-14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotchDave Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Apparantly, when Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph were 13-14 ← Yes, but that was back in the day when once you were 13 you were a man out to earn your living laready. Joseph could support Mary and that little baby, these girls can't support their babies, the fathers don't want to. The govenrment aka taxpayers foot the bill. :angry:" Also if you look at India, girls get married at like 12 and 13 years old. It's just the way they do things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 If you're going to believe that bollocks though, technically Mary had the child because of God getting her pregnant, so his Dad is literally older than time... Aaaaaaaaaanyway, I can't really see it being the parent's fault, really. They can't watch their kids all the time, and basically, even thicker-than-shit chavs know "cock in me = pregnancy" (simplified so I don't scar the minds of anyone (N)), so they would've known the risks. They didn't have to have the baby even after they knew they were pregnant, so it's 100%, entirely their own fault. It wouldn't surprise me if those orange boiler suits became cool. Low trousers became cool because it was a throw-back to when people came out of prison. They weren't allowed belts in case they hung themselves, so they had to wear their trousers low, so when they came out they wore them low to show they'd gone to prison, because of course going to prison's super cool :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewholdsworth Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 just think though when the 12 yr olds kid starts school, the mum will be doing gcses! lets just hope home times coincide! It says use a condom and wear to stick it, what more can it do. perhaps sex ed will evolve to parent and baby lessons, which will involve topics such as, the benefit system - and how to live off it; how to sue the absent father for all he hasnt quite saved up at age 14; your own mum - how to get her to fulfil those grandparent resposibilities; video assistance provided by coronation street, and eastenders - for that so true to life image of teenage parenting. who knows!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 It's common sense. Wear a fecking jonny. It's not exactly on the same level as splitting an atom is it, it's a bit of rubber that rolls on. Then again, the cells some of these council trash chavs posess in their brains aren't the most useful on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Apparantly ← Allegedly (sp) yeah... but then it's a book of tales no more true than Charlie and the Chocolate factory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyroo Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Allegedly (sp) yeah... but then it's a book of tales no more true than Charlie and the Chocolate factory. ← You mean there was no chocolate factory... you b*****d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotchDave Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Allegedly (sp) yeah... but then it's a book of tales no more true than Charlie and the Chocolate factory. ← Correction, the old testament is a book of anecdotal tales. The new testament is the chronicles of Jesus's life. I don't know why I'm defending the new testament :angry: I don't believe in it. (N) (N) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Everyones free to beleive what they like. Personally i've never heard more bull than the Bible, but hey whatever floats your boat. To me it's a collection of stories but I know some people take it as hard evidence that a long haired guy performed miracles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotchDave Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Correction, the old testament is a book of anecdotal tales. The new testament is the chronicles of Jesus's life. I don't know why I'm defending the new testament :angry: I don't believe in it. :) (N)← ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (N) :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 When was he having a dig at you, just voicing an opinion (Y) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotchDave Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Nah, its just (I felt) he was lumping me in with the mindless bible bashers. But I'd just said before I don't believe in it. (Y) Not having a go at any one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.