Another great idea presented by the UN

[Loupelou]

Actually, Mrs. Mungo, the program starts at 5 year olds, so I'm not sure why you chose 9 and 10 for your example. To answer your question, I am outraged by practices and conditions in other countries, but I do not think 5 year olds (or 9 year olds) need to be encouraged to think of their private area as pleasurable when touched.

 

In truth, sex ed programs have been set up in the U.S. for some time now; I remember having one in the fifth grade. I'm not sure what they continue to teach in U.S. sex ed class, as I have no intentions of ever having my children in a traditional school again. It doesn't personally affect me. There are initiatives and treaties with the UN that do seriously concern me despite what good they do in the world, and these do pertain to family, which is probably why this sex ed initiative is bothersome to many.

 

U.S. public schools are, in my opinion, a social program for those who do not teach their own or do not have the means to provide a means of education for their children. It was voluntary in the beginning and not invasive. Now, though, I answer to my local school board for my homeschooling. So, I do think something can start out just being helpful and there for "those who aren't getting it otherwise" and become the norm and invasive.

 

:iagree:

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

The motivation for my personal position on the concept of teaching such things to children has nothing to do with a so called "excessive anxiety & fear" about children's nascent sexuality or children masturbating but a due respect for the authority of a Sovereign and Holy God and recognition of my responsibility before Him to raise the children He has given me in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I imagine that's the case for most of the "religious crowd".

 

I'm not discounting the temptation to fear and anxiety at the thought of a Government attempting to override parental authority and impose it's own philosophy/religion upon their children since it's not like it hasn't happened many times in history in one form or other whether secular or religious. Some of us may fall into such a temptation but putting the label of "hysterical" or "excessively anxious & fearful about children's nascent sexuality" on anyone that fervently upholds a moral standard vehemently opposed to ones own is absurd.

[CalicoKat]

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

It all blows my mind. The teachers being the most trusted source of info and support lines running through it makes my skin crawl too.

:iagree: as well.

[Loupelou]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543203,00.html

 

I have nothing to say. I am speechless. Anyone know if this falls under the Rights of Child Convention? I have already sent mail to my senator about the convention and this is more fuel for the fire.

 

I don't know if I can specifically answer your question, but this document does reference the CRC's call to provide sexuality education, so I imagine if that were adopted it would be rolled into whatever programs are implemented.

[lionfamily1999]

I am quite aware that I'm in the minority in this forum on these issues but I nevertheless find it important to note that I don't object to any of the 3 things I've listed.

 

The response of the majority on this board gives me pause & reconfirms my determination to speak out on the causes of internationalism, tolerance and human rights.

Hornblower, I am really quite ignorant of the UN, who's in it, etc. Never really mattered to me to know, especially since the US has a tendency to ignore it anyway. I'm curious though, how many countries strongly based in religion are in the UN?

 

Dh said last night, THIS is the reason the Muslim countries hate us. Because we come up with blanket ideals and then try to make it seem "normal" thereby making dissenters "abnormal." I can see his point, and I am wondering what you, coming from the far opposite position think.

[usetoschool]

There are already groups set up to fight this. One of them is run by the HSLDA guys at ParentalRights.org They have some additional information about why they think this charter is a bad idea from their perspective and are currently working on a law in the Senate/House with many sponsors already. If you feel strongly about this either way you can see if you congressional rep. is sponsoring the legislation.

[hornblower]

Hornblower, I am really quite ignorant of the UN, who's in it, etc. Never really mattered to me to know, especially since the US has a tendency to ignore it anyway. I'm curious though, how many countries strongly based in religion are in the UN?

 

Dh said last night, THIS is the reason the Muslim countries hate us. Because we come up with blanket ideals and then try to make it seem "normal" thereby making dissenters "abnormal." I can see his point, and I am wondering what you, coming from the far opposite position think.

 

I'm not really sure I understand the question. Pretty much everyone IS in the UN. Taiwan isn't (because PRC would have a fit as they don't recognize Taiwan as independent). The Vatican isn't (it is a recognized state though). Switzerland wasn't but joined in 02.

 

Every other country is a member.

 

(The part you may have heard more about is the Security Council which is part of the UN & is charged with issues of international peace & conflict. There are 5 permanent members: China, France, Russia, UK, US. 10 other countries are elected to balance regional & ethnic interests & serve 2 year terms. The permanent members have the ability to veto which effectively means the elected 10 don't have a whole lot of power.)

 

The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by every country except the US and Somalia. ('Cause you know how Somalia is a beacon of human rights & thoughtful consideration of the balances between individual liberty and state power.:glare:)

 

UN conventions are not imposed on countries. They're developed in long boring committee meetings at the UN, then the final text is adopted by all the countries at a general assembly, then the countries take the text home & if they get their nation's agreement, they officially sign it (that's what ratification means).

 

Countries which have ratified it regularly report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child about the progress they're making.

 

There are a couple recent codicils to the convention (regarding child soldiers & child prostitution/pornography) which are not fully ratified yet by member states; they're slowly making their way through national governments. (except of course US & Somalia where they're not on the agenda at all. )

 

I hope that explains things. My degree is in Political Science & I've worked with UNHCR refugees in Canada's immigration system so these issues are pretty dear to me. Feel free to ask more questions.

[Nestof3]

Hornblower,

 

May I ask if you think that the US needs the UN in order to protect human rights in the US, or do you think the US is capable of doing that on its own?

[CLHCO]

Hornblower,

 

May I ask if you think that the US needs the UN in order to protect human rights in the US, or do you think the US is capable of doing that on its own?

 

:lurk5:

 

I have no idea why I'm posting. I'm biting my virtual tongue so hard it's bleeding and I think I'll feel better if I just type something stupid?

[lionfamily1999]

I'm not really sure I understand the question. Pretty much everyone IS in the UN. Taiwan isn't (because PRC would have a fit as they don't recognize Taiwan as independent). The Vatican isn't (it is a recognized state though). Switzerland wasn't but joined in 02.

 

Every other country is a member.

 

(The part you may have heard more about is the Security Council which is part of the UN & is charged with issues of international peace & conflict. There are 5 permanent members: China, France, Russia, UK, US. 10 other countries are elected to balance regional & ethnic interests & serve 2 year terms. The permanent members have the ability to veto which effectively means the elected 10 don't have a whole lot of power.)

 

The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by every country except the US and Somalia. ('Cause you know how Somalia is a beacon of human rights & thoughtful consideration of the balances between individual liberty and state power.:glare:)

 

UN conventions are not imposed on countries. They're developed in long boring committee meetings at the UN, then the final text is adopted by all the countries at a general assembly, then the countries take the text home & if they get their nation's agreement, they officially sign it (that's what ratification means).

 

Countries which have ratified it regularly report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child about the progress they're making.

 

There are a couple recent codicils to the convention (regarding child soldiers & child prostitution/pornography) which are not fully ratified yet by member states; they're slowly making their way through national governments. (except of course US & Somalia where they're not on the agenda at all. )

 

I hope that explains things. My degree is in Political Science & I've worked with UNHCR refugees in Canada's immigration system so these issues are pretty dear to me. Feel free to ask more questions.

Ah my degree's in don't have one ;) Thanks for sharing your expertise.

 

I told you what dh said (this is why Muslim countries hate us) and I was wondering what you thought about that. Are things, like assuming that all children between 5-8 should know about masterbation, feeding into the stressful relations between us? There does not seem to be room in that lesson plan, or whatever you want to call it, for religious beliefs, or even the more gender biased situations in Middle Eastern countries. Could things like that be the root of hate and distrust?

[Elizabeth Conley]

THIS is the reason the Muslim countries hate us. Because we come up with blanket ideals and then try to make it seem "normal" thereby making dissenters "abnormal."

 

I agree. This is a serious disconnect. We drivel on about what ignorant savages Muslims are, refusing to recognize any of their valid objections to what they see as our decadent, immoral culture.

 

There are valid reasons to object to the casual dismantling of your own culture.

 

It's arrogant and foolish for people outside of a culture to believe the "backward" would be better off if they adopted "just a few modern ideas." Cultural norms doesn't work that way. Each part fits into a whole like a puzzle piece.

 

I didn't care for the supercilious smirks of the public school teachers who included my children in family life classes over my written objections. No, I wasn't planning on suing, and no, I didn't thing the curriculum was shocking. I thought then as I do now: family life instruction did not belong in the public school. They should have had more respect for our family. Their open contempt contributed greatly to my skepticism with regard to the public school's fitness to educate my children.

 

Calling reasoned objections to having cultures around the world threatened by a supercilious, out-of-control bureaucracy "hysteria" lends nothing fruitful to the discussion. This attitude only highlights the overweening intellectual pride that has spawned so many UN debacles. It's not so much the proposed sex ed curriculum that's the problem, as it is the staggering arrogance of those willing to foist this unwelcome social agenda on all humanity.

[hornblower]

Hornblower,

 

May I ask if you think that the US needs the UN in order to protect human rights in the US, or do you think the US is capable of doing that on its own?

 

Well, I could write essays on this (& in fact, I think I did in the past. :001_smile:)

 

I think one argument one could put forth in response is that this question misses the point of what the United Nations (and the League of Nations before that) are trying to accomplish - which is not an international government btw, but rather an international, multilateral framework on rights and obligations. It's not about the US.

 

Remember that these are the outgrowths of WWI & WW2 respectively and that the concerns were with overcoming a system of alliances which tipped the world into huge wars. At the same time, you had continuing developments in philosophy on issues of humanity, rights, states. AND at the same time you had the rise of communism, fascism, and of course post-WW2, the coming to terms with the holocaust.

 

My perspective is that one guiding principle of this whole exercise has been that if we work together on things, we're less likely to screw up, and that unilateral action is on the whole undesirable.

 

 

As specifically to your question, several things occur to me:

 

1. I think all nations do better when they have clear targets & goals, and a system of accountability. This is true of people too.

 

2. No. You have not been doing a good job. I think this is hard to hear for Americans. It is hard to hear for everyone when someone points out an error in our ways. Unfortunately, most people are not aware that errors are being pointed out & even if it's brought to their attention are quick to dismiss them.* BTW, I think most nations are doing a pretty crappy job. That's the nature of it. But I think if we can't even admit where our shortcomings are & where we need to improve, then it's hopeless.

 

3. By going unilateral, you are undermining the moral authority of an international system. It seems to me that American often argue that you already do this & that already, so why do you need to sign on? And the answer is that if you value these things & want to see them spread in the world, then the only way to do it which is not imperialist or colonialist is through an international concensus movement.

 

4. By moving unilaterally you're in effect claiming some sort of exemption, some special status. Well, what is the source of this special status? Is it your GDP? Your nuclear weapons? Some moral imperative? What if another country's GDP eclipses yours in 10 years? Do you give up your special status & agree to let them take whatever unilateral action they like?

 

5. By modelling this type of unilaterality you're also encouraging other nations - rogue nations to 'give a finger' to the international community and to do things their way. Even if YOUR way is ok and good and just, you're opening the route for countries with very different intentions and aspirations to strike off on their own.

 

*Are you aware for instance that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture just recently filed a report indicating the Guantanamo Bay detention facility is still in violation of international law?

 

(you're probably sorry you asked now :D. Sorry, I know I go on & on & on & on.....)

[lionfamily1999]

I agree. This is a serious disconnect. We drivel on about what ignorant savages Muslims are, refusing to recognize any of their valid objections to what they see as our decadent, immoral culture.

 

There are valid reasons to object to the casual dismantling of your own culture.

 

It's arrogant and foolish for people outside of a culture to believe the "backward" would be better off if they adopted "just a few modern ideas." Cultural norms doesn't work that way. Each part fits into a whole like a puzzle piece.

 

I didn't care for the supercilious smirks of the public school teachers who included my children in family life classes over my written objections. No, I wasn't planning on suing, and no, I didn't thing the curriculum was shocking. I thought then as I do now: family life instruction did not belong in the public school. They should have had more respect for our family. Their open contempt contributed greatly to my skepticism with regard to the public school's fitness to educate my children.

 

Calling reasoned objections to having cultures around the world threatened by a supercilious, out-of-control bureaucracy "hysteria" lends nothing fruitful to the discussion. This attitude only highlights the overweening intellectual pride that has spawned so many UN debacles. It's not so much the proposed sex ed curriculum that's the problem, as it is the staggering arrogance of those willing to foist this unwelcome social agenda on all humanity.

Have you written a very similar post to this before? I was just clobbered with dejavu.

 

I agree with you, but it's hard to focus when I've read this exact thing before.... wierd.

[hornblower]

I agree. This is a serious disconnect. We drivel on about what ignorant savages Muslims are, refusing to recognize any of their valid objections to what they see as our decadent, immoral culture.

 

There are valid reasons to object to the casual dismantling of your own culture.

 

.

 

I think there's an error being made in this discussion in not only linking the US & the UN, but almost speaking as if they're synonymous. (which is bizarre anyway seeing as how it seems the US & the posters here want to distance themselves from the UN)

 

Some Muslim countries do have very poor opinions of the US.

 

Generally though Muslim countries have better opinions about the UN.

 

Indonesia - world's most populous Muslim-majority country - 79% have a favourable opinion about the UN. Only 63% think favourably of the US.

 

Jordan - 44% like the UN; 25% like the US

 

Palestinian territories - 30% like the UN; 15% like the US

 

Lebanon - 62% for the UN; 55% for the US

 

Pakistan - 28% for the UN; 16% for the US

 

(all figures 2009; source Pew Global Attitudes)

 

 

 

I think when you're talking about "our decadent, immoral" cultures, I think it would be important to clarify what you mean? I have heard the American culture defined that way, but I really do not see how that applies to the United Nations. The United Nations is not an American puppet & is not perceived that way abroad.

 

Also, I have heard some Americans talk about savagery of Muslim countries, but that is not a sentiment you'd hear in the halls of the UN, which is what this thread is about.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I agree. This is a serious disconnect. We drivel on about what ignorant savages Muslims are, refusing to recognize any of their valid objections to what they see as our decadent, immoral culture.

 

There are valid reasons to object to the casual dismantling of your own culture.

 

It's arrogant and foolish for people outside of a culture to believe the "backward" would be better off if they adopted "just a few modern ideas." Cultural norms doesn't work that way. Each part fits into a whole like a puzzle piece.

 

 

I feel the same way about missionaries who go into a different culture and dismantle all or parts of it with their religious ideals.

 

 

While I believe that they THINK they are doing the right thing,.....they are really just destroying a culture. :thumbdown::sad:

[lionfamily1999]

I think there's an error being made in this discussion in not only linking the US & the UN, but almost speaking as if they're synonymous. (which is bizarre anyway seeing as how it seems the US & the posters here want to distance themselves from the UN)

 

Some Muslim countries do have very poor opinions of the US.

 

Generally though Muslim countries have better opinions about the UN.

 

Indonesia - world's most populous Muslim-majority country - 79% have a favourable opinion about the UN. Only 63% think favourably of the US.

 

Jordan - 44% like the UN; 25% like the US

 

Palestinian territories - 30% like the UN; 15% like the US

 

Lebanon - 62% for the UN; 55% for the US

 

Pakistan - 28% for the UN; 16% for the US

 

(all figures 2009; source Pew Global Attitudes)

 

 

 

I think when you're talking about "our decadent, immoral" cultures, I think it would be important to clarify what you mean? I have heard the American culture defined that way, but I really do not see how that applies to the United Nations. The United Nations is not an American puppet & is not perceived that way abroad.

 

Also, I have heard some Americans talk about savagery of Muslim countries, but that is not a sentiment you'd hear in the halls of the UN, which is what this thread is about.

I was equating the two where this particular issue was concerned, because Elizabeth had said (and sited, I believe) where much of this is from US policy.

 

I really have to wonder about the UN stance on most Mulsim countries, though, after having read the ideals set into this particular course. Gender bias is hit on nearly every single topic. Nudity and shame are also covered. Both for the 5-8s I only glanced at the other age groups. It seems that, while they may be quiet about it, looking at this course, they DO find countries with rules in regards to gender or sexual expression to be backwards and even dangerous to the upcoming generations.

[lionfamily1999]

I feel the same way about missionaries who go into a different culture and dismantle all or parts of it with their religious ideals.

 

 

While I believe that they THINK they are doing the right thing,.....they are really just destroying a culture. :thumbdown::sad:

I see the two as completely different. On one hand, you have a small group of people, coming to 'save' a country. On the other, you have a coalition of countries coming to 'save' the youth of a country.

[phathui5]

Learning Objective for Level 1 (5-8)

 

Distinguish between male and female bodies

Key Ideas:

• Appropriate names for body parts and their functions

• Differentiate between male and female sexual organs

• Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel

pleasurable when touched by oneself

• Appropriate public behaviour concerning private body parts

• Nakedness and shame

 

 

 

 

 

Learning Objectives for Level II (9-12)

Describe the structure and function of the sexual and

reproductive organs

Key Ideas:

• Basic principles of sexual and reproductive anatomy and

physiology, including the menstrual cycle, spermatogenesis

and erection, wet dreams and ejaculation

• Both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure

 

 

• Describe common genital problems

 

 

Learning Objectives for Level I (5-8)

Explain the concept of private parts of the body

Key Ideas:

• Most children are curious about their bodies

• It is natural to explore and touch parts of one’s own body

• Bodies can feel good when touched

• Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation

• Some people masturbate and some do not

 

 

• Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private

 

 

Balderdash???? It would seem that you owe Fox an apology.

 

The above is from the document. Now I sure do not want a 5 year old being taught what is listed and I do not want a 9 year old being taught about wet dreams.

 

Let’s also be serious here, when you point out that touching certain parts in a certain way may be pleasurable IS an open invitation to try it. Arguing otherwise is quite simply disingenuous.

 

You know, with kids hitting puberty early, it's entirely possible that there are 9 year old boys who are having wet dreams. If they don't learn about what's happening, they could think there's something wrong with them.

[phathui5]

Oh... and different body parts, not sure 5-8 need to identify the opposite sex's genitals.

 

 

I think they absolutely do need to know the names of all the parts of both genders.

 

When dd was molested, she needed to be able to tell me and the investigators what exactly happened and correct terminology was important.

[hornblower]

I have a question please -

 

Is there a clear biblical prohibition against masturbation & if so, is that for both males & females?

 

thanks,

[phathui5]

Is there a clear biblical prohibition against masturbation & if so, is that for both males & females?

 

Not that I can find and I've read the whole thing several times.

 

The reference people use against masturbation is Onan "spilling his seed." But his sin was refusing to provide a heir and continue the family line.

[lionfamily1999]

I think they absolutely do need to know the names of all the parts of both genders.

 

When dd was molested, she needed to be able to tell me and the investigators what exactly happened and correct terminology was important.

My dcs don't. I don't think my dd would have been any better off knowing the parts and mechanics of a penis. I think it would have given her more food for thought than her mind was ready for. My dss know I'm different, but I don't believe they need to know HOW different.

 

In the case of one, like your dd, the information could have been introduced at that time to clarify. Why tell everyone what only applies to a few?

 

Also, having known persons who made up claims, that would've only given them more information to use for their lies.

I have a question please -

 

Is there a clear biblical prohibition against masturbation & if so, is that for both males & females?

 

thanks,

Hornblower, I've been trying to figure out what "fornication" means, in a biblical sense. Is it only sex or sex acts and does that include self-satisfaction. I have no idea. I do know we aren't supposed to lust, we aren't even supposed to look in order to lust, which would make masterbation, imo, rather difficult, especially for people that are visual.

 

If you're focusing on God, though, I don't imagine that masterbation is something you'll be doing a lot of... I mean, that seems kind of wrong, imo.

Edited August 27, 2009 by lionfamily1999
really bad typing mistakes, sheesh.

[phathui5]

My dcs don't. I don't think my dd would have been any better off knowing the parts and mechanics of a penis. I think it would have given her more food for thought than her mind was ready for. My dss know I'm different, but I don't believe they need to know HOW different.

 

Interesting. What is it that's stopping you from letting them know parts of the body? Are you incomfortable? Do you think there's something wrong with it?

 

And I doubt the parts and mechanics are important, but I do think that children of both sexes should know what a penis and vagina are.

[lionfamily1999]

Interesting. What is it that's stopping you from letting them know parts of the body? Are you incomfortable? Do you think there's something wrong with it?

 

And I doubt the parts and mechanics are important, but I do think that children of both sexes should know what a penis and vagina are.

I didn't say they didn't know the basics (boy penis girl vagina), I don't see the importance of learning all the parts. It is not of interest to them, yet, and I don't see why I should introduce a new interest, especially one that at their age, the information is of no use.

 

Why do my sons need to know what a clitoris is? My older ds is 8, what does he have to do with them?

 

Why does dd need to know the names for different parts of a penis? She's 12, what does she have to do with them?

 

I do think it's introducing information that would then LEAD to more curiosity which could very easily lead to bad situations.

 

The basics, sure, they want to know the difference between Mom and Dad and themselves, but there is no need for this to be a. introduced in a group setting, b. introduced by a school/teacher, c. introduced in detail at all.

[Mrs Mungo]

To Dawn-I spoke with a friend about this issue. He did a mission trip to the inner-cities of Chicago last year. Apparently, the schools there taught third graders to use condoms *because so many of them were getting STDs from having unprotected sex*. I don't know where we should draw the line and with whom. I do think this is a voluntary program, the US has not signed it, has not ratified it and I don't get why it's an issue. The UN can't force us into a treaty.

 

Oh and I will clarify one thing about treaties under US law-they require approval by 2/3 of the Senate before they come into force, the president cannot just sign them into law.

 

Hornblower, I've been trying to figure out what "fornication" means, in a biblical sense. Is it only sex or sex acts and does that include self-satisfaction. I have no idea. I do know we aren't supposed to lust, we aren't even supposed to look in order to lust, which would make masterbation, imo, rather difficult, especially for people that are visual.

 

If you're focusing on God, though, I don't imagine that masterbation is something you'll be doing a lot of... I mean, that seems kind of wrong, imo.

 

I think by this definition all sex would be wrong.

 

I think one can lust for one's partner, be visually stimulated by one's partner and still masturbate.

 

The sin of Onan was taking his pleasure and yet avoiding his responsibility under the law.

 

I don't think there is a Biblical prohibition against masturbation, not a definitive one.

[st_claire]

I haven't read all the posts, but I think it's a very good recommendation. It's important to teach kids about the anatomy of the human species. And it's important to set them up for a possitive sexual self-image. Many children do masturbate at young ages, and unfortunately, when a parent sees this they often shame the child. Better to teach them that it is a private thing, but a good thing.

[lionfamily1999]

I think by this definition all sex would be wrong.

 

I think one can lust for one's partner, be visually stimulated by one's partner and still masturbate.

 

The sin of Onan was taking his pleasure and yet avoiding his responsibility under the law.

 

I don't think there is a Biblical prohibition against masturbation, not a definitive one.

Except that there are exceptions made for marraige, but in marraige it's not referred to as fornication, which is why I wanted to know the biblical definition of fornication.

 

Lust is tied to adultery. It's not adultery if it is your own partner, I should have specified that but I assumed it was understood.

 

I would wonder, though, if you followed all of the rules set forth and were upright in your walk, would you masterbate? Isn't that sort of leading you into temptation. There you are trying to get "happy" and what are you thinking about?? I'm really just not sure, it almost seems like one of those things that isn't said specifically, but could be implied...

 

Of course, I'm still learning ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

I would wonder, though, if you followed all of the rules set forth and were upright in your walk, would you masterbate? Isn't that sort of leading you into temptation. There you are trying to get "happy" and what are you thinking about?? I'm really just not sure, it almost seems like one of those things that isn't said specifically, but could be implied...

 

I'm an Army wife. My husband and I have both have high sex drives. We are frequently apart for weeks at a time, sometimes months at a time. If it makes *you* think I'm falling short and I'm not upright in my walk because I need that release, so be it. I don't feel any judgment or shame from God in it.

[lionfamily1999]

I'm an Army wife. My husband and I have both have high sex drives. We are frequently apart for weeks at a time, sometimes months at a time. If it makes *you* think I'm falling short and I'm not upright in my walk because I need that release, so be it. I don't feel any judgment or shame from God in it.

I did not say that you or anyone else was falling short. As a matter of fact, I've said a couple of times that I'm still learning, I don't know and I'm unsure.:glare:

Edited August 27, 2009 by lionfamily1999
was going to add, but n/m

[Audrey]

Nothing bothersome in any of this.

 

Except the hysteria, that is.

:iagree: You always say it so much nicer than I would.

[OH_Homeschooler]

I feel the same way about missionaries who go into a different culture and dismantle all or parts of it with their religious ideals.:thumbdown::sad:

 

:iagree:One of the great traditions.

[phathui5]

Except that there are exceptions made for marraige, but in marraige it's not referred to as fornication, which is why I wanted to know the biblical definition of fornication.

 

Lust is tied to adultery. It's not adultery if it is your own partner, I should have specified that but I assumed it was understood.

 

I would wonder, though, if you followed all of the rules set forth and were upright in your walk, would you masterbate? Isn't that sort of leading you into temptation. There you are trying to get "happy" and what are you thinking about?? I'm really just not sure, it almost seems like one of those things that isn't said specifically, but could be implied...

 

Of course, I'm still learning ;)

 

Here are good articles to help you find answers:

 

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/masturbation/masturbationnotcalledsin.shtml

 

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/masturbation/mastdiscuss.shtml

[lionfamily1999]

Here are good articles to help you find answers:

 

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/masturbation/masturbationnotcalledsin.shtml

 

http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/masturbation/mastdiscuss.shtml

That was what I was thinking... As long as it's not tied to adultery or lust, it's sort of the equivalent of massaging a sore muscle.

 

Personally, I have difficulty with NOT thinking, if I could make it a purely physical act, then perhaps it would be blameless.

 

Then, it's what you bring to it that could bring in sin. Ie, lust/adultery.

[lionfamily1999]

If the UN is your poster child for internationalism then you have one UGLY BABY!

I don't even know if I agree, but I definitely laughed out loud!:lol:

[Elizabeth Conley]

I didn't say they didn't know the basics (boy penis girl vagina), I don't see the importance of learning all the parts. It is not of interest to them, yet, and I don't see why I should introduce a new interest, especially one that at their age, the information is of no use.

 

 

I agree.

 

We currently assess the probability that a child has actually been a victim of certain sex crimes by analyzing whether their knowledge about sexuality & anatomical details is age & culturally appropriate or not. This dubious precocious "education" is of questionable value, and may confuse future child abuse investigations.

 

Further, my kids are fond of the term "TMI" (Too Much Information). They'll ask me a question about reproduction or sexuality, and I do my best to answer it. If I get more graphic and detailed than they are looking for, they hold up their hand and say "TMI Mom!"

 

I respect their boundaries. They are children. They know they are children. They like being children. Their understanding of human sexuality is appropriate for their age and gender. For instance, my 13 year old daughter knows why she got the gardasil vaccine. My 10 year old son knows how he was conceived, how he developed, and how he was born. These things are appropriate for their ages and our culture.

 

It seems to me that people who want to teach their own sex education agenda to my children haven't a clue about appropriate boundaries - of any sort - whatsoever. At best, these people are bullies. At worst, they're aggressive pedophiles. The most disturbing thing about them is the arrogant and self-righteous attitude that permits them to operate without a qualm.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Originally Posted by pqr

If the UN is your poster child for internationalism then you have one UGLY BABY!

 

 

ROFLMFAO -

 

Spank you very much. This topic needed the comic relief.

[lionfamily1999]

We currently assess the probability that a child has actually been a victim of certain sex crimes by analyzing whether their knowledge about sexuality & anatomical details is age & culturally appropriate or not. This dubious precocious "education" is of questionable value, and may confuse future child abuse investigations.

 

 

It seems to me that people who want to teach their own sex education agenda to my children haven't a clue about appropriate boundaries - of any sort - whatsoever. At best, these people are bullies. At worst, they're aggressive pedophiles. The most disturbing thing about them is the arrogant and self-righteous attitude that permits them to operate without a qualm.

Regarding the first bolded section, this concerns me as well. Now, as it stands, a five-year-old speaking of what most would consider sexually explicit topics would gain the attention of the adults around them immediately, but what to do when they're being taught this by a "trusted authority figure?" I mean, imo, that blurs the lines. It's easy, now, for me to say, no one other than dh and myself should be discussing these things with you... but adding in a slew of secondary advisors??? That and, again, when kids lie (and some do) knowing these things will make it more difficult to figure out if what they are saying is, indeed, the truth.

 

I agree, and see the irony all wrapped up in a ball. I'm sure someone will say the same about the religious persons wanting these things kept out of school are doing the same thing. Augh.

[Denise in Florida]

In the sense that hysteria can be defined as excessive fear or anxiety of something. I was saying that some people appear to me to be a) excessively anxious & fearful about children's nascent sexuality; b) excessively anxious & fearful about children masturbating; c) excessively anxious & fearful of the UN.

 

I am quite aware that I'm in the minority in this forum on these issues but I nevertheless find it important to note that I don't object to any of the 3 things I've listed.

 

The response of the majority on this board gives me pause & reconfirms my determination to speak out on the causes of internationalism, tolerance and human rights.

 

:iagree: Sorry, I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to say I appreciate how clearly you expressed my feelings on this.

[LizzyBee]

In the sense that hysteria can be defined as excessive fear or anxiety of something. I was saying that some people appear to me to be a) excessively anxious & fearful about children's nascent sexuality; b) excessively anxious & fearful about children masturbating; c) excessively anxious & fearful of the UN.

 

 

I just want to clarify something about my earlier post. Just because I don't think 5-8 year olds need to be taught about masturbation in school doesn't mean that I don't think it happens or that I feel any anxiety about it. I think you might be attributing attitudes to those who disagree with you that don't exist at all.

[Jugglin'5]

I think there's an error being made in this discussion in not only linking the US & the UN, but almost speaking as if they're synonymous. (which is bizarre anyway seeing as how it seems the US & the posters here want to distance themselves from the UN)

 

Some Muslim countries do have very poor opinions of the US.

 

Generally though Muslim countries have better opinions about the UN.

 

Indonesia - world's most populous Muslim-majority country - 79% have a favourable opinion about the UN. Only 63% think favourably of the US.

 

Jordan - 44% like the UN; 25% like the US

 

Palestinian territories - 30% like the UN; 15% like the US

 

Lebanon - 62% for the UN; 55% for the US

 

Pakistan - 28% for the UN; 16% for the US

 

(all figures 2009; source Pew Global Attitudes)

 

 

 

I think when you're talking about "our decadent, immoral" cultures, I think it would be important to clarify what you mean? I have heard the American culture defined that way, but I really do not see how that applies to the United Nations. The United Nations is not an American puppet & is not perceived that way abroad.

 

Also, I have heard some Americans talk about savagery of Muslim countries, but that is not a sentiment you'd hear in the halls of the UN, which is what this thread is about.

 

 

I would like to hear what the African countries who have UN "Peacekeepers" there would have to say about this. I suspect that if they had a choice they would gladly trade them for US soldiers. Maybe I'm a little hysterical and have excessive fear, though.

[Mrs Mungo]

The bottom line is this:

 

This initiative is designed to combat the AIDS epidemic. It's designed to combat the idea that you can cure yourself of AIDS by having sex with a virgin, even if that virgin is an infant. It's designed to help children protect themselves in countries where child marriages and selling children into sexual slavery are common. It's designed to help in areas where the help and information is needed. These guidelines have only just been launched and are not finalized. The US isn't going to ratify this precisely *because* of how treaties are handled under the US Constitution-they become US law (in theory but not really in practice). If there were a push to have this passed by Congress and implemented into US law *as written and without restriction* (as restrictions have been placed on other treaties) then, fine, fair enough. But that isn't the case.

 

Other countries have signed many, many UN treaties that they never pass into law in their own country and that are never enforced. The reason the US doesn't sign many of these treaties is not because of backward attitudes but because of the difference in how treaties are handled under US law. You don't have to get outraged for other Western countries because they aren't really enacting this into law or enforcing it in their own countries.

 

The countries where it matters, where the UN is trying to help (and I realize the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all of that), much of this *is* needed.

[stripe]

Would they be teaching sex education? Like various soldiers and peacekeepers have done around the world? Or, er, is this a separate question.

 

(I am very much disturbed by the rape-a-virgin thing, and certainly think many adults need some serious sex ed.)

[OnTheBrink]

I just want to clarify something about my earlier post. Just because I don't think 5-8 year olds need to be taught about masturbation in school doesn't mean that I don't think it happens or that I feel any anxiety about it. I think you might be attributing attitudes to those who disagree with you that don't exist at all.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I'm not seeing hysteria; I'm seeing people expressing their views and concern with being forced to have their own children exposed to ideas that conflict with their own values.

 

I guarantee, if the shoe were on the other foot, the name calling, hysteria and rage would be out of control.

[Elizabeth Conley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LizzyBee

I just want to clarify something about my earlier post. Just because I don't think 5-8 year olds need to be taught about masturbation in school doesn't mean that I don't think it happens or that I feel any anxiety about it. I think you might be attributing attitudes to those who disagree with you that don't exist at all.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I'm not seeing hysteria; I'm seeing people expressing their views and concern with being forced to have their own children exposed to ideas that conflict with their own values.

 

I guarantee, if the shoe were on the other foot, the name calling, hysteria and rage would be out of control.

 

 

Oh Yeah! Absatively.

 

The whole projection of hysteria discredits their argument. By implying that only irrational basket-cases object to having their children indoctrinated into another culture's sexual norms, they're avoiding addressing the real issue.

[Caraway]

The bottom line is this:

 

This initiative is designed to combat the AIDS epidemic. It's designed to combat the idea that you can cure yourself of AIDS by having sex with a virgin, even if that virgin is an infant. It's designed to help children protect themselves in countries where child marriages and selling children into sexual slavery are common.

 

I just don't get how this list of objectives helps. If what they are trying to do is stop infant rape etc... than wouldn't the list be more helpful like this:

 

There are boy parts and girl parts - this is what they are called

The mingling of boy parts and girl parts does NOT cure illness

The mingling of boy parts and girl parts may CAUSE illness

Your private parts belong to your body and are under your control

Do not violate the bodies of others

 

Seems to me that there is a political agenda behind the current suggestions that does not fit with the stated goals. :glare:

[hornblower]

I would like to hear what the African countries who have UN "Peacekeepers" there would have to say about this. I suspect that if they had a choice they would gladly trade them for US soldiers. Maybe I'm a little hysterical and have excessive fear' date=' though.[/quote']

 

There are Canadians serving there now in the Congo, Sudan & Darfur as UN Peacekeepers. What are you saying exactly? Are you dissing my troops? And why would you put peacekeeping in quotes?

 

A Canadian invented peacekeeping & won the Nobel Prize for it. UN Peacekeepers were collectively recognized with another Nobel in 88. Canadian have served in the majority of peacekeeping operations which the UN initiated.

 

I am very proud of the blue helmets from ALL nations who contribute to this effort.

Are you suggesting that if US troops entered those streets they'd be welcomed with flowers? 'cause we've seen how that played out already.....

[Jugglin'5]

There are Canadians serving there now in the Congo, Sudan & Darfur as UN Peacekeepers. What are you saying exactly? Are you dissing my troops? And why would you put peacekeeping in quotes?

 

A Canadian invented peacekeeping & won the Nobel Prize for it. UN Peacekeepers were collectively recognized with another Nobel in 88. Canadian have served in the majority of peacekeeping operations which the UN initiated.

 

I am very proud of the blue helmets from ALL nations who contribute to this effort.

Are you suggesting that if US troops entered those streets they'd be welcomed with flowers? 'cause we've seen how that played out already.....

I'm sure they'd welcome an all Canadian force too. The Canadians aren't the ones raping and abusing the ones the are sent to protect.

 

From the Washington Post, though you can also find this in the BBC and CNN archives. It's not a secret.

 

UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations is facing new allegations of sexual misconduct by U.N. personnel in Burundi, Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere, which is complicating the organization's efforts to contain a sexual abuse scandal that has tarnished its Nobel Prize-winning peacekeepers in Congo.

The allegations indicate that a series of measures the United Nations has taken in recent years have failed to eliminate a culture of sexual permissiveness that has plagued its far-flung peacekeeping operations over the last 12 years. But senior U.N. officials say they have signaled their seriousness by imposing new reforms and forcing senior U.N. military commanders and officials to step down if they do not curb such practices.

 

 

"The blue helmet has become black and blue through self-inflicted wounds," Jane Holl Lute, a senior U.N. peacekeeping official who heads a U.N. task force on sexual exploitation, told a congressional committee investigating allegations that U.N. personnel participated in rape, prostitution and pedophilia in Congo. "We will not sit still until the luster of that blue helmet is restored."

The reports of sexual abuse have come from U.N. officials, internal U.N. documents, and local and international human rights organizations that have tracked the issue. Some U.N. officials and outside observers say there have been cases of abuse in almost every U.N. mission, including operations in Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Kosovo.

"This is a problem in every mission around the world," said Sarah Martin, an expert on the subject at Refugees International who recently conducted investigations into misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia. "If you don't have a strict code of discipline, accountability and transparency in the process, then you're going to continue to have a problem."

Peacekeepers in several Liberian communities routinely engage in sex with girls, according to an internal U.N. letter obtained by The Washington Post. In the town of Gbarnga, peacekeepers were seen patronizing a club called Little Lagos, "where girls as young as 12 years of age are engaged in prostitution, forced into sex acts and sometimes photographed by U.N. peacekeepers in exchange for $10 or food or other commodities," according to the letter, which a representative of the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) wrote Feb. 8 to the mission's second-ranking official.

The letter also stated that community leaders in the town of Robertsport have accused Namibian peacekeepers there of "using administrative building premises and the surrounding bush to undertake sex acts with girls between the age of 12-17."

The letter said the U.N. peacekeeping mission had failed to address some misconduct reports. In response, the U.N. special representative in Liberia, Jacques Klein, ordered an investigation, according to an internal U.N. memo dated Feb. 18. U.N. Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette, meanwhile, traveled this month to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast to urge the missions' leadership to crack down on sexual misconduct.

The United Nations also opened an investigation earlier this month into allegations of sexual abuse of minors by U.N. troops in the Central African country of Burundi. "Over the past few weeks I have learned to my deep regret that, despite firm instructions to the contrary, some staff members continue to indulge in unacceptable and potentially illegal behavior," Carolyn McKaskie, the senior U.N. representative, wrote in a March 10 internal memo to members of the U.N. mission.

Lute said the U.N. peacekeeping department has ordered an internal review of its policies for combating sexual exploitation among the nearly 80,000 peacekeepers in all 17 U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world. They are also pressing countries that contribute peacekeepers to prosecute those accused of crimes in special courts-martial in the countries where they are accused.

"We have violated our duty for care, and we need to fix that problem," Lute said in a recent interview. "We're shining a light here, and it's not a pretty picture. But when you're in the swamp, the only way out of the swamp is through the swamp."

Pamela Shifman, a UNICEF expert on sexual exploitation of children, said abuses are pervasive among U.N. peacekeepers deployed in countries that have been afflicted by grinding poverty and years of conflict. But, she said, "It is not inevitable. That's a really important message -- that we can address impunity. We can address accountability."

Martin, of Refugees International, said the degree of military discipline varies from mission to mission. In Liberia, she said, uniformed U.N. peacekeepers and U.N. civilians openly frequent brothels in marked U.N. vehicles. She also noted that some contingents, including the Namibians, are encamped in local villages, placing them in direct contact with locals.

In Haiti, she said, soldiers from Chile, Brazil, Sri Lanka and Peru "lived in walled compounds with gates, and they are not able to go out at night; they are under strict curfew."

Still, two Pakistani police were removed from Haiti last month after a local woman accused them of raping her at a banana farm outside Gonaives, U.N. officials said. A U.N. investigation dismissed the rape charge but expelled the Pakistanis for hiring a prostitute.

In September a Brazilian peacekeeper was accused of raping a minor in Port-au-Prince, Martin said. The United Nations concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the peacekeeper, she said.

Sexual abuse scandals have shadowed the United Nations since the early 1990s, when U.N. peacekeepers in Cambodia were charged with sexually abusing girls. At the time, the U.N.'s top official in Cambodia, Yasushi Akashi, played down the gravity of the allegations, saying, "Boys will be boys."

Human rights investigators and journalists documented widespread abuses in 2001 in Kosovo and Bosnia, where U.N. police operated brothels and trafficked women from Eastern Europe to engage in prostitution.

A U.N. spokesman in Kosovo, Neeraj Singh, said a series of reforms had curtailed such abuses. But Singh confirmed that a Pakistani staff member in the office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, Rashid Doon Khan, was arrested in Kosovo on Jan. 28 by an international prosecutor in Kosovo pending a pretrial investigation that "relates to sexual and narcotics-related charges involving minors."

Singh declined to provide further details. An attorney for Khan, Tome Gashi, declined to comment on the charges.

 

 

The point is, having a healthy suspicion of the UN does not mean that one has an excessive fear or hysteria about sex or the UN. The UN needs to remove the log from their own eyes first before trying to remove the speck out of mine.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Jugglin'5

[LibraryLover]

I feel the same way about missionaries who go into a different culture and dismantle all or parts of it with their religious ideals.

 

 

:lurk5: Dude.

[Heather in Neverland]

OK, I realize I am coming in late on this and I realize that you are all talking about lofty things but I have read all 10 pages and I just gotta ask...

 

Do we really have to TEACH little kids that touching their private area is pleasurable? I mean, I have two boys and as soon as they discovered they HAD a penis they started playing with it. Sheesh...we had a tougher time teaching them WHEN and WHERE it was OK to do this. The "HOW" came pretty natural. :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

OK, I realize I am coming in late on this and I realize that you are all talking about lofty things but I have read all 10 pages and I just gotta ask...

 

Do we really have to TEACH little kids that touching their private area is pleasurable? I mean, I have two boys and as soon as they discovered they HAD a penis they started playing with it. Sheesh...we had a tougher time teaching them WHEN and WHERE it was OK to do this. The "HOW" came pretty natural. :tongue_smilie:

 

Very true. :lol: