Teach Safe Violence

[aandb]

Cause sex is the healthy way to deal with depression and self-confidence?

I suppose it is if your problems stem from feelings of shame and guilt regarding sexual activities.

 

[david_x]

I suppose it is if your problems stem from feelings of shame and guilt regarding sexual activities.

Something that getting married couldn't fix?

 

[aandb]

Something that getting married couldn't fix?

Sometimes getting married is out of the question. Some people choose not to get married. Others don't have the money.

What about teenagers? Teenagers ARE going to have sex. They always have, and they always will. Athiest teens have sex, and (believe it not, I have a feeling you'll choose not) Christian teens have sex. Jewish teens have sex, and Muslim teens have sex.

Ancient Egyptian teens had sex. Teens in Medieval times had sex. Shall I go on?

Should the SMART option be to educate them about their bodies, and how to safely have what they're going to do regardless?

 

[david_x]

Sometimes getting married is out of the question. Some people choose not to get married. Others don't have the money.

What about teenagers? Teenagers ARE going to have sex. They always have, and they always will. Athiest teens have sex, and (believe it not, I have a feeling you'll choose not) Christian teens have sex. Jewish teens have sex, and Muslim teens have sex.

Ancient Egyptian teens had sex. Teens in Medieval times had sex. Shall I go on?

Should the SMART option be to educate them about their bodies, and how to safely have what they're going to do regardless?

For one thing only half have sex. It is not a fact that they will have sex.

Two: it's only a problem when Christian teens have sex outside of marriage, beyond that I don't really care nor is it important.

Third, marriage costs 50 bucks or free if you do it common law.

 

[aandb]

For one thing only half have sex. It is not a fact that they will have sex.

Two: it's only a problem when Christian teens have sex outside of marriage, beyond that I don't really care nor is it important.

Third, marriage costs 50 bucks or free if you do it common law.

Only half of teens have sex? Back it up. My sources are saying that 63% of grade 12 students have had sex. 63 =/= 50.

Alright then, what about all the people who aren't allowed to marry because of US forbidding them because of their sexuality? It's not fair to expect an entire walk of life to abstain from sex because the government said so.

 

[david_x]

Only half of teens have sex? Back it up. My sources are saying that 63% of grade 12 students have had sex. 63 =/= 50.

Mine said 46, so pretty much the same.

Alright then, what about all the people who aren't allowed to marry because of US forbidding them because of their sexuality? It's not fair to expect an entire walk of life to abstain from sex because the government said so.

That's a whole 'nother bag o' worms.

 

[quatona]

Here is just a very odd idea.

It is argued that:

- we ought to teach safe sex in schools because if we don't there will simply be kids having unsafe sex, thus being more apt to contract disease or have unwanted pregnancy.

- sex is natural and beautiful and shouldn't be treated as a dirty phenomenon.

- religious conservatives are trying to get their agenda into school, and essentially violating the rights of everyone else and making us look like we live in the stone age by trying to teach stuff like 'abstinence only,' which simply have not proven to be effective.

What if we had a system that essentially regulated violence between students, and emphasized what 'honorable fighting' is, and how to control violent altercations so that no one is seriously hurt.

Teach kids mixed martial arts and offer programs at schools that would allow teachers to regulate and observe fighting; much as a school passes out condoms, we could have regulatory bodies to insure the safety of students who desired to fight to settle a conflict.

Whereas:

- violence is going to happen, anyways, and is more likely to have negative repercussions if we do not insure it is done ethically and safely between consenting parties who have an understanding of how to avoid permanent damage.

- violence is natural and beautiful. The fighting entertainment industry rakes in billions across the globe because people are thrilled and excited to see physical combat.

- Liberals are trying to manipulate our schools with 'pacifism only' policies; they have gone to such extents as to create 'zero tolerance' policies concerning violence, even if it is done by two consenting people. They are trying to erect their godless religion of humanism.

And maybe we can all wonder why the liberals took boxing class out of traditional education.

It has even been said of teaching violent sport in school:

'In my own constituency, it's probably the number one sport that young people want to do. It gives them self-esteem, it gets rid of aggression, yet at the same time it's a highly disciplined sport.
'We know it can be a way of disengaging kids from gangs, carrying knives, from low level crime and high level anti-social behaviour.'


It has become so popular in schools, quite simply, because it works,' said Rebecca Gibson, head of development at the Amateur Boxing Association of England.


Among the schools that have already seen the benefits of boxing is the Harris Academy in Merton, South London.

'It has had an impact on everything here, from behaviour and attendance to academic attainment,' said Greg Morrison, assistant principal.

Read more: Boxing on the rise as the sport 'improves behaviour and school attendance' | Mail Online

​

Thoughts?

​

You don´t happen to have an even broader brush, do you?
I am a liberal and pacifist, but I have no problem with other persons practicing violence in mutual consent.
It can´t be denied that young persons have a strong potential of aggression, and it´s a good thing to teach them how to deal with it responsibly.

Sex and violence are indeed comparable: Just like the main message concerning sex is "make sure the other person wants it, too" I am fine with violence as long as the message is "If you want to punch someone on the nose make sure they want to be punched on the nose."

 

[MoonLancer]

Abstinence only has definitely worked for me, I haven't gotten anyone pregnant and I don't have any STD's.

You can still get it from blood transfusions, violent sports, and dirty restrooms. the std part, not the pregnant part.

 

[Verv]

To be far, fighting can be fun when both parties consent. I've fought people with both my bare hands and with swords, and we've both had a whale of a time.
I can see and understand your disagreement, but I think I can also see Verv's point here.
Orgainised combats, as in boxing, fencing, and various martial arts, have as much in common with bashing someone over the head by surprise as two people having consentual sex has with grabbing someone and forcibly penetrating them.

More to follow, I hope, after sleep.

Thank you Archer -- I should have been more clear and concise in my original post, y ou put some good words to add to what I said here.

verv, you're missing the whole point of violence.

If you teach kids "safe violence", they're going to do precisely the opposite of what you teach them to do, so as to make the violence they do to others as unsafe as possible. That's because the point of violence is to hurt other people. Do you see how this is different from sex?

But will kids do precisely the opposite of safe sex if they are taught?

I do not think the point of violence is always to hurt people. Rather, it is often to get out some form of frustration and of course to inflict a minimum of pain.

The idea is partly to prove oneself to another, and to get out aggression.

I also think there is far more to this that is subconscious when it comes down to personal conflicts.

Overall, I think that the martial arts are valuable and rewarding activities and sports, and there is no reason to not include them in schools (as football and wrestling seem to be fine). Mixed Martial arts, boxing, kickboxing, submission grappling, and other forms of fighting all provide a good outlet of energy, provide good exercise, and teach the ability to defend against threats (which also builds confidence as a side-effect).

I don't think children should be taught that fighting over disagreements can be helpful, though. The person who is better at fighting, or is stronger, or more aggressive, has no bearing on who is "right" in their disagreement.

In our society, we cannot even fight if both parties feel they have a good reason to do that (unless you are Canadian where they have the infamous consensual fight laws [are these still in effect?]).

Sometimes it makes sense to fight one another -- in a way it is a profound relief of frustration and expression of combat that connects with something deep down inside of us.

I think teaching people that it is not a part of the human psyche is as foolish as trying to educate people that sex is not an expression inherent to us as humans, that we do engage in outside of marriage and in times that are, in fact, irresponsible.

And there are those here who would have us believe that it is in fact positive to do that.

This is the main part of your post I find problematic. Liberals = godless humanism? Because there aren't millions of religious or spiritual liberals around the world?

Liberals took boxing class out of traditional education? From which country or state? Which "liberals" were they? All liberals?

It looks like you've regressed to blaming the nebulous "liberals" for everything. What does conservatism or liberalism have anything to do with mixed martial arts?

-Lyn

There has always been traditional views amongst liberals to try to make things safer for kids; this is where we get zero tolerance policies that have punished boyscouts for bringing their hunting knives to school. This is also where we get exaggerated anti-bullying laws where calling a kid an anti-gay epithet somehow now qualifies as a hate crime.

Liberalism has been the root of the loss of much of what is natural about our humanity -- it has tried to even regulate the normal behavior of children until every facet of education is made into turnign each child into a calm, subdued socialist pacifist intent on spending their days as submissive citizens drinking from the breast of big government.

Democracy has a hysterical belief in the futility of violence; which demonstrates an ignorance of history on such a vast scale it is scarcely comprehensible.

Any children of mine will be taught how to fight and, if necessary, to kill.

This is incredibly true.

Another thing to point out:

Left wingers believe in the Hegelian dialectic as interpreted by Marx: that history is class war advancing us slowly to a perfect state of socialistic Utopia, and many liberals today still believe this.

There were early figures such as America's first truly liberal President, Woodrow Wilson, who literally fought WWI and called it The War To End All Wars.

Everything is a series of misinterpretations for the left that find us at the end of the day staring at a giant fallacy.

Just because some of the people are now living better than they have before does not mean that our problems are gone.

There is something else hiding in the corners where the Left is wont to look.

 

[Steezie]

Cause sex is the healthy way to deal with depression and self-confidence?

I felt depressed because I didnt have anyone to be physically intimate with and self-confidence issues came from thinking no one really wanted me.

When I became active, depression related to that aspect of my life went away.

Something that getting married couldn't fix?

Yeahhhh, 'cause there's a whole lot of 14 year olds looking to get married. Nevermind the fact that you cant legally get married until you're 18 and even if I could, why on earth would I get married just to have sex? That sounds like a nightmarish marriage.

For one thing only half have sex. It is not a fact that they will have sex.

Assuming you arent pulling that data out of No Sunshine Valley, so what?

Two: it's only a problem when Christian teens have sex outside of marriage, beyond that I don't really care nor is it important.

Translation: My people are better than yours, we matter more.

Jesus would have been proud.

Third, marriage costs 50 bucks or free if you do it common law.

Yet again, why on EARTH would I want to be stuck in a marriage purely so I could have sex and NOT be sinning? You wonder why the divorce rate among Christan groups is so high, maybe this could have something to do with it?

I'll tell you something. I would rather live fifty years as a lusty, rowdy, polyamorous Pagan and burn in hell for the rest of eternity than to spend eternity marching to music I couldn't even begin to understand to go somewhere I didn't really want to go. I love life, I love it's experiences, and I don't want to cast them aside for an eternity in paradise. If I am to be cast out of heaven and condemned to hell for being who and what I am then I will bang my way out of the pearly gates with a booted foot, no escort required.

And even among the flames of hell, I will be happy. I will be happy with the memories I cherish from the life I lived and the things I saw.

I refuse to spend my life waiting to live.

 

[Beechwell]

Democracy has a hysterical belief in the futility of violence; which demonstrates an ignorance of history on such a vast scale it is scarcely comprehensible.

If at all democracy has a tendency to belief that there are generally better options than violence. And I'd say that 20th century history supports that (several successful non-violent revolutions, and wars that usually do more bad then good)

I don't think any major liberal ideology says violence is never an option. But it should be avoided as possible.

The the OP: The post sounds as if there is a trend in schools (in the US?) to ban fighting sports on grounds of them being "too violent". Is that actually true?

 

[david_x]

You can still get it from blood transfusions, violent sports, and dirty restrooms. the std part, not the pregnant part.

Thank you for that inconsequential insertion.

 

[david_x]

I felt depressed because I didnt have anyone to be physically intimate with and self-confidence issues came from thinking no one really wanted me.

When I became active, depression related to that aspect of my life went away.

I'm just saying that was not a healthy way to deal with those kinds of issues.

Yeahhhh, 'cause there's a whole lot of 14 year olds looking to get married. Nevermind the fact that you cant legally get married until you're 18 and even if I could, why on earth would I get married just to have sex? That sounds like a nightmarish marriage.

14yo should not be having sex anyways, any more than they should be driving, drinking, or using guns.

Assuming you arent pulling that data out of No Sunshine Valley, so what?

So it's not everyone.

Translation: My people are better than yours, we matter more.

Jesus would have been proud.

Not even close, it means there it is not my place to judge those outside of the Church.

Yet again, why on EARTH would I want to be stuck in a marriage purely so I could have sex and NOT be sinning? You wonder why the divorce rate among Christan groups is so high, maybe this could have something to do with it?

Rofl, obviously it should be with someone you can stand to be with for 50+ years.

I'll tell you something. I would rather live fifty years as a lusty, rowdy, polyamorous Pagan and burn in hell for the rest of eternity than to spend eternity marching to music I couldn't even begin to understand to go somewhere I didn't really want to go. I love life, I love it's experiences, and I don't want to cast them aside for an eternity in paradise. If I am to be cast out of heaven and condemned to hell for being who and what I am then I will bang my way out of the pearly gates with a booted foot, no escort required.

And it's of no consequence to me.

And even among the flames of hell, I will be happy. I will be happy with the memories I cherish from the life I lived and the things I saw.

I refuse to spend my life waiting to live.

What happy memories? Don't you know that everything good is of the Lord? Happy memories will be with God, in hell only bad memories can possibly remain.

We aren't waiting to live, we are living to live.

 

[trunks2k]

Only half of teens have sex? Back it up. My sources are saying that 63% of grade 12 students have had sex. 63 =/= 50.

Mine said 46, so pretty much the same.

I think the numbers are something like 46% have had intercourse (i.e. penis in vagina), 63% have had some sort of sexual experience (intercourse, oral/anal sex, mutual masturbation).

 

[david_x]

I think the numbers are something like 46% have had intercourse (i.e. penis in vagina), 63% have had some sort of sexual experience (intercourse, oral/anal sex, mutual masturbation).

That could be too.

 

[sidhe]

Here is just a very odd idea.

It is argued that:

- we ought to teach safe sex in schools because if we don't there will simply be kids having unsafe sex, thus being more apt to contract disease or have unwanted pregnancy.

- sex is natural and beautiful and shouldn't be treated as a dirty phenomenon.

- religious conservatives are trying to get their agenda into school, and essentially violating the rights of everyone else and making us look like we live in the stone age by trying to teach stuff like 'abstinence only,' which simply have not proven to be effective.

Good. That's pretty much correct.

What if we had a system that essentially regulated violence between students, and emphasized what 'honorable fighting' is, and how to control violent altercations so that no one is seriously hurt.

Teach kids mixed martial arts and offer programs at schools that would allow teachers to regulate and observe fighting; much as a school passes out condoms, we could have regulatory bodies to insure the safety of students who desired to fight to settle a conflict.

Seriously strange idea, but not utterly outlandish. If we remove the introduction concerning sex education, then we have an interesting topic for discussion. Hey! Even if we stop here, it's an interesting idea with an odd lead in...let's see if we stop there...

Whereas:

No. You didn't stop.

- violence is going to happen, anyways, and is more likely to have negative repercussions if we do not insure it is done ethically and safely between consenting parties who have an understanding of how to avoid permanent damage.

Now your comparison starts getting really strange. I both have practiced martial arts, and...inventive intimate practices. Both, regardless of the level of safety and consent, carry risks of injury and permanent damage. While being prepared for them is the best option, encouraging them as a way of solving problems is bad. I'm opposed to abstinence-only education, but abstinence is as close as one can come to a 100% guarantee against STDs/pregnancy. I support people learning martial practices, but I oppose using them as conflict resolution.

- violence is natural and beautiful. The fighting entertainment industry rakes in billions across the globe because people are thrilled and excited to see physical combat.

...but that's not violence as conflict resolution. As much as I love watching Emelienko pwnanza the inferior human beings he faces, and will cheer for Forrest Griffin (hometown boy! W00t!), it's the same as my joy that the Dawgs won their bowl game - admiration of athletic achievement, not saying "Wow, that would solve my problems.

- Liberals are trying to manipulate our schools with 'pacifism only' policies; they have gone to such extents as to create 'zero tolerance' policies concerning violence, even if it is done by two consenting people. They are trying to erect their godless religion of humanism.

Um, what? Okay...seriously: Who are these nebulous liberals, and as your above situation of regulated physical conflicts in school is not reality, why would those who take part in physical violence at school not be punished severely?

And maybe we can all wonder why the liberals took boxing class out of traditional education.

Liberal = disagrees with Verv?

Is promoting diversity ethical. - Page 7 - Christian Forums

You seem to have a pathological obsession with blaming some nebulous group of "liberals" with quashing all brilliant ideas, yet never provide proof of such, nor respond when asked to do so.

It has even been said of teaching violent sport in school:

'In my own constituency, it's probably the number one sport that young people want to do. It gives them self-esteem, it gets rid of aggression, yet at the same time it's a highly disciplined sport.
'We know it can be a way of disengaging kids from gangs, carrying knives, from low level crime and high level anti-social behaviour.'


It has become so popular in schools, quite simply, because it works,' said Rebecca Gibson, head of development at the Amateur Boxing Association of England.


Among the schools that have already seen the benefits of boxing is the Harris Academy in Merton, South London.

'It has had an impact on everything here, from behaviour and attendance to academic attainment,' said Greg Morrison, assistant principal.

Read more: Boxing on the rise as the sport 'improves behaviour and school attendance' | Mail Online​

Okay, martial arts do encourage discipline, so that makes sense. However...what does that have to do with liberals? Where did liberals come from? You totally disrupt the post by comparing sexual education to martial arts (though there is a comparison to be made...tantra is a kind of martial discipline), and then have a brief rant about liberals in the middle of it all that is totally disconnected from anything else you say.

Seriously - write your posts, and then delete any sentence with the word "liberal" in it, and we'll be good.​

 

[Steezie]

I'm just saying that was not a healthy way to deal with those kinds of issues.

Then what was the best way? I wanted to feel close, intimate physical contact with someone and I was depressed because I didnt have that.

14yo should not be having sex anyways, any more than they should be driving, drinking, or using guns.

Regardless of what you think they should or shouldn't be doing, I DID and I found it to be an amazing experience that I'm very grateful for having so young.

So it's not everyone.

Does it have to be?

Not even close, it means there it is not my place to judge those outside of the Church.

Riiiiight.

Rofl, obviously it should be with someone you can stand to be with for 50+ years.

There are alot of women I definitely wouldn't mind taking to bed but I wouldn't take them to the altar if my life depended on it.

What happy memories? Don't you know that everything good is of the Lord? Happy memories will be with God, in hell only bad memories can possibly remain.

Then what I will be in hell is not what I am now and I will be unaware of who I am in which case, I care not.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Does this mean we can compare non-consensual violence to rape?

 

[MoonLancer]

well rape is a type of sexual violence after all.

 

[aandb]

Mine said 46, so pretty much the same.

No, not pretty much the same, my source said it was nearly 20% higher. That is in no way the same.