Post: #1

Quote:Year 7 girls have been warned not to have multiple sex partners or risk becoming like overused sticky tape, in a Christian sex education program at a public Victorian high school.

The students at Fairhills High School, in Knoxfield in Melbourne's outer east, were also told that a chemical released in females' brains made them more needy than boys.

A booklet titled 'Science & Facts', that was given to the students, said that "girls are needier than guys in a relationship and always want to be close".

Advertisement

CityLife Church executive minister Peter Leigh
CityLife Church executive minister Peter Leigh
It said that a chemical called oxytocin, is released when "two people touch", and was produced by women more than men, making them needier.

"If a woman becomes physically close and hugs a guy for 20 seconds it will trigger the bonding process, creating a greater desire to be near him. Then if the guy wants to take the relationship further it will become harder for her to say no," the booklet said.

It warned that having too many relationships could break "this special chemical bond" and harm a woman's capacity to form future relationships.

"Having multiple sex partners is almost like tape that loses its stickiness after being applied and removed multiple times. So the more you have the harder it is to bond to the next," it said.

The booklet was given out during a weekly youth program run by Epic Youth, which is part of a Melbourne Pentecostal megachurch called CityLife, and was delivered during school hours in June.

A mother of one of the students, who did not want to be named, was shocked when her daughter came home with the booklet last week, after attending the classes for a month. The school had not sought parental consent to deliver the program.

"You try so hard to teach girls not to be ashamed and not to feel like men can take liberties with them ... it is dangerous and unhealthy to teach this to girls, especially whilst they're going through adolescence," the mother said.

When asked about the program, CityLife Church executive minister Peter Leigh said the organisation "cares a lot about seeing young people grow up well and engaged positively in every area of life".

"The purpose of our school-based programs is to, alongside what schools are already doing, build positive messages into young people around a range of different areas of life," he said.

Fairhills High School acting principal Russell Poulier said the school had cancelled the program and would cooperate with an investigation launched by the Education Department into why the program was run at the school.

"The program has been cancelled and we regret that these materials were distributed to students," he said.

"The school will work closely with the department to investigate the matter and make sure this can't happen again."

An Education Department spokesman said the materials were "completely inappropriate and in breach of department policy" and "totally out of step with department approaches to sexuality and relationships education".

Fairfax Media understands that the program is being offered at other public schools in the state.

Deputy convenor of Australian Women's Health Network, Dr Gwendolyn Gray Jamieson, called the literature "rubbish", and condemned the program for teaching girls "they had to be chaste, virginal and that they were responsible for what happens in a relationship".

"It is inherently unfair and sexist," she said.

http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/christia...i3o7g.html

Who'd raise their kids in Australia?

Post: #2

God forbid girls learn the truth about themselves. We need more sluts!

Post: #3

Who was it that said "May you live in interesting times" as a form of curse? Whoever it was didn't even scratch the surface of just how "interesting" these times have become... lol.

Post: #4

(07-02-2015 02:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  God forbid girls learn the truth about themselves. We need more sluts!

Post: #5

Quote:It warned that having too many relationships could break "this special chemical bond" and harm a woman's capacity to form future relationships.

Let's look at the science, Austrialia.

Women who have more non-marital sexual partners:

• are more likely to be infected with STDs
• are less likely to have stable marriages
• are less likely to be happy
• are more likely to be depressed.

So here we go, they claim to fight for the wellbeing of women but instead the feminist movement is actively trying to make your daughters into depressed-and-medicated, STD-ridden single mothers.

Post: #6

(07-02-2015 02:17 PM)draguer Wrote:  "You try so hard to teach girls not to be ashamed and not to feel like men can take liberties with them ... it is dangerous and unhealthy to teach this to girls, especially whilst they're going through adolescence," the mother said.

Didn't the information presented actually help with these supposed concerns? They are teaching the girls one of the mechanisms that enable men to "take liberties" with them. She would rather her daughter be slutty and unashamed than virtuous and self-aware.

Post: #7

Quote:"Having multiple sex partners is almost like tape that loses its stickiness after being applied and removed multiple times. So the more you have the harder it is to bond to the next," it said.

I think science is going to end up vindicating a lot of the wisdom in religion when it comes to things like marriage. The following study from UVA's National Marriage Project reported that:

Quote:Many in Generation YOLO (you only live once) believe that what happens while you’re young won’t affect your future. But our research paints a different picture.

Prior research suggests that if the only person you had sex with prior to marriage was your eventual spouse, your odds of marital stability are good. Data collected in the 1990s on women who married a generation ago (men weren’t included) showed that women who had sex with only their future spouse before marriage were at no greater risk for divorce than those who waited until marriage to have sex (Teachman, 2003).

But that’s not most people. In our sample, only 23 percent of the individuals who got married over the course of the study had had sex solely with the person they married. That minority of men and women reported higher marital quality than those who had had sex with other partners prior to marriage. We further found that the more sexual partners a woman had had before marriage, the less happy she reported her marriage to be. This association was not statistically significant for men.

Post: #8

It is a sad day when religion feels the need to recruit science to justify teaching morals.

Post: #9

If I was this school, I'd be actively shoving my curriculum in the faces of every leftist organization I could find. Leftists would never give me any business anyway, but the louder they squawked, the more right-minded fathers would hear about my school and enroll their daughters.

Post: #10

Liberal minded social justice advocates can coddle and "live and let live" all they want, but their subjective social ideologies will not defy science.

The disparity comes from where the people advocating FOR sexual liberation think that the people suggesting sexual reservation are trying to control, oppress, and hurt people. the argument is all subjective and assumes that advising anything but fucking however much you want with whomever you want is is not in anyone's best interest. What they fail to realize is that having sex is a conscious act the incurs a lot of responsibility to the parties involved. Look it it this way:

We promote "safe sex." We promote it in school to pubescent boys and girls. Why? We aren't saying "You need to have sex and when you do you have no choice but to use protection." We are saying if you have sex it is a good idea to use protection because there are a number of negative and potentially fatal consequences for not using it. As to say "Do whatever you want, but know that their are consequences for your actions."

Suggesting women be more reserved about the people they chose to have sex with is no different. They should be aware that having sex with people requires measure of responsibility, and studies show that the nature of your sex life can very likely have an adverse affect on certain aspects of your life that you may want to account for.

Is it wrong to say "Hey, just so you know, men are going to judge you about your sex life, and your sexual habits will affect you." Like anything else you do in your life, your habits have an affect on who you are and how you grow and interact with the world around you. The philosophy that anyone is immune to culpability is absurd.

Post: #11

Schools shouldn't be teaching any of this shit anyways. Schools are there to educate our children in math, science, English, etc. Morals should be left up to the parents to decide. Schools and the government are jamming their morals (what they want us to believe) down the throats of children when they have no business doing it. Gay acceptance, sex ed (std transmission should be taught as it's science), gender equality, and all of this other bullshit has no place in the classroom, it is for the parents to decide what, how and when to teach their children.

Schools are no longer there to educate, they are there to brainwash and FORCE children to learn and accept the poison that leftists and the government want to impose upon them, and their families.

I agree with this schools teachings, but it's the parents who should be teaching this, not the school.

Post: #12

The religion of liberalism stamps out science that contradicts it.

Same as it ever was.

Post: #13

(07-02-2015 04:01 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  Schools are no longer there to educate, they are there to brainwash and FORCE children to learn and accept the poison that leftists and the government want to impose upon them, and their families.

I think this is basically the case in any country with an organized educational system.

They choose what they will teach and what they won't teach. They choose how they will present historical events, how they will present the world, what lessons they will teach the kids.

I can't imagine a school system that doesn't do this, and I don't think our school system didn't used to do this, the lessons just were different.

What you teach kids in school is always a political decision. There's simply no way around it.

What would you have kids do, nothing but pure mathematics and science? They need to read, and probably you would imagine that they would in some way analyze or discuss what they read. And from there you're shaping their little minds.

Post: #14

Good find OP.

The man from 0:26 is probably the headmaster at that school:

Post: #15

(07-02-2015 05:30 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  Good find OP.

The man from 0:26 is probably the headmaster at that school:

That mouthy bitch blabber could've been drastically cut short by way of a swift pimp slap to all 3 of their faces, but alas, simple corrective measures that have worked for 1000's of years before now is outlawed.

Post: #16

Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

Post: #17

(07-02-2015 02:24 PM)sixsix Wrote:  Women who have more non-marital sexual partners:

• are more likely to be infected with STDs
• are less likely to have stable marriages
• are less likely to be happy
• are more likely to be depressed.

I think the first two are true men too. The latter two though are probably the inverse for men.

Post: #18

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

The forum is in a difficult position.

If we refuse to bang sluts and focus our energy on finding a non-slut with strong mother/wife potential, we're still living in a world of sluts, where married women are encouraged to hack off all their hair, Eat Pray Love, and disrespect their husbands. Even with the best of statistics at our side (choosing a woman with a low notch-count), we have absolutely no guarantee of a stable home life.

This goes double when you consider kids. If a woman who seemed like a good fit decides that she "needs to find herself," your kids are really going to pay for it and you as a man have very little power to change this. You won't get primary custody and you'll have no control over which men your wife will expose your children to.

Given what we no about the nature of women, it's not a simple matter of finding one of the good ones. You need to track down a women who hasn't given in to the demands of her vaginal tingles and pray to God that she never does.

Society used to police women's behavior, but not any more. And even if a divorce never comes, the current dogma is that women love sex as much as men, so therefore, they should only sex when the personally desire it. Your sexual satisfaction is always inches away from being crushed by a woman's boot heel.



We could go celibate and experience no sexual satisfaction.



Or we could accept that the world has changed, women are too unreliable to enter into a contract (especially one where she has all the power), and simple bang all the existing sluts that are going to slut it up anyway, even without our help.



This choice doesn't preclude us to supporting and encouraging the (largely pointless) efforts of those who are still trying to help develop a stable society where women have the potential to be good mothers and wives.

Post: #19

(07-02-2015 05:08 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 04:01 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  Schools are no longer there to educate, they are there to brainwash and FORCE children to learn and accept the poison that leftists and the government want to impose upon them, and their families.

I think this is basically the case in any country with an organized educational system.

They choose what they will teach and what they won't teach. They choose how they will present historical events, how they will present the world, what lessons they will teach the kids.

I can't imagine a school system that doesn't do this, and I don't think our school system didn't used to do this, the lessons just were different.

What you teach kids in school is always a political decision. There's simply no way around it.

What would you have kids do, nothing but pure mathematics and science? They need to read, and probably you would imagine that they would in some way analyze or discuss what they read. And from there you're shaping their little minds.

Which I'm totally fine with, but I'm not fine with them teaching gay acceptance, sex ed, and other leftist nonsense. They can teach history and current events, give opposing views, and let children come to their own conclusions. Teaching them that there are 6 genders, or that homosexuality is normal and to be accepted, isn't true. At the very least if they are going to teach this they need to give multiple sides to the argument, not just force their agenda down the throats of our children.

Soon we are going to have Homosexual History/Pride Month, if we don't already in some schools, and teach kids a completely biased view of homosexuals and their accomplishments, just to brainwash these children into believe that being gay is just as good as being straight and that it's perfectly ok.

Post: #20

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

This comes up often, but it's not a contradiction.

1. Women's attitudes set the average sexual partner count.
2. Men's attractiveness and actions set theirs, but relative to the average.

It's fine to have 2 notches in a society where most women are marrying as virgins. You'd feel like you're doing fine. It's an entirely different thing to have 2 notches in a society where women are sluts who play dick-pussy-wack-a-mole. You'd feel like a loser.

I'm in favour of women marrying as virgins, and me having as much sex as I want with the best girls I can. There is no contradiction.

Post: #21

(07-03-2015 01:40 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

This comes up often, but it's not a contradiction.

1. Women's attitudes set the average sexual partner count.
2. Men's attractiveness and actions set theirs, but relative to the average.

It's fine to have 2 notches in a society where most women are marrying as virgins. You'd feel like you're doing fine. It's an entirely different thing to have 2 notches in a society where women are sluts who play dick-pussy-wack-a-mole. You'd feel like a loser.

I'm in favour of women marrying as virgins, and me having as much sex as I want with the best girls I can. There is no contradiction.

Exactly.

I want to bang as many hot girls as I can, but what's good for me is not necessarily good for women and/or society. To think otherwise is the fallacy of composition.

I want girls to be as chaste as possible--except with me.

Female sluttiness corrodes society at its very core. More sluts means lower degrees of attachment of men to women, especially to slutty women. It lowers paternal investment, leaving more fathers indifferent about being involved with their kids. It decreases incentive for men to work hard, slowing down the economy.

If I were God and I wanted to punish a civilization... forget tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, plagues, droughts, famines, or meteors... I'd dial-up the sluttiness of its women.

Post: #22

It's not a coincidence that the phrases "slut shaming" and "fat shaming" emerged around the same time. According to feminists and their media lapdogs, it's wrong to give women basic health advice and teach them to have some restraint.

If this keeps up, we'll have a society of fat sluts. It'll be Jezebel everywhere, all the time.

A society unable to teach its young moderation is a society that's on a collision course with disaster. Historically, we've taught women to be modest and men not to be reckless.

Feminists only believe in male half of this equation. I'm not getting how mainstream people don't see this, especially the parents of teenage boys.

This will not end well. A generation of girls taught that any advice they're given is "shaming" or "mansplaining" will end up as insufferable, self-righteous monsters when they become women.

And I thought Gen X women were difficult. Guess I had it better than I thought. Millennial guys, my heart goes out to you all.

Post: #23

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

The guys that have zero desire to have a decent girl, and cannot see past their nose for what slut nation means for our future, are pro slut.

The rest of us are anti slut.

Post: #24

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

I think they're pro slut, as long as it's not their daughter.

Post: #25

(07-02-2015 09:34 PM)germanico Wrote:  Sometimes im not sure if the forum is pro-slut or anti-slut.

You know...it's interesting when you look at a country like
Saudi Arabia. That's a place where promiscuity is forbidden
and women are not allowed to be seen by anyone except their family
members and their husbands.

So that country would be considered "anti-slut" in every possible way
and life there is absolutely miserable for the guys who don't have the
money or connections to get married. By virtue of this "anti-slut" policy, it means a lot
of men are not allowed to get laid.

That's the natural, logical conclusion of shaming women for being "sluts".
Lock them all up and make it so that no one ever gets laid again.

Also, if you're not going to get married...by the same logic, women should
never ever sleep with you...since that too promotes a promiscous lifestyle
and tarnishes their virtue.

That's why you should never call women sluts...it's just not in your best
long term interests.

It's like promoting a policy that says all cookie jars should be open and accessible
(within reason) and then turning around and saying that all cookie jars should be
kept locked away until the cookie jar's Dad gives you his blessing to take
the cookie jar home with you.