NationStates Jolt Archive

The Sex Education Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

DEEPLY DISTURBED that in many Nations:
-A- Sexual education is lacking
-B- Education about female sexuality is often unheard of and no mention is made of the clitoris, the statistically most erogenous zone for women, which is not directly correlated with reproduction
-C- Lack of quality sex education can lead, many times, to unplanned teen pregnancies and unnecessary abortion

OBSERVING that:
-D- Sex has two important functions: reproduction and pleasure
-E- Sexual activity is a common activity, contributing to the happiness of many people, worldwide

URGES:
-1- All Nations to organize and secure some sexual education courses for all, before the age of 18-years; and
-2- All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment

Voting Ends: Tue Aug 23 2005

here is the former discussion thread about this proposition:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436304

I find this a patronizing resolution. Although I value sexual education and the Groot Gouda education system provides in most what this resolution asks, why force the contents of lessons through a UN resolution? What should the UN have to do with this? Lack of sex education is a national problem. My nation does not suffer from other nations not giving any sex education.

This resolution is way too detailed, in my opinion, which doesn't take into account the varied nature of NationStates cultures accros the planets.

I shall vote Against.

You know, this is a really good idea:

The City by the Live Sea teaches this and more...BUT how the hell should this be something debated in the UN??? I believe that the UN was established to help peoples (and when I say peoples, I am refering to sentient beings that pass the "Star Trek" rules of sentience) live a humane life.

Now I like sex, I like kids but how the hell will sex education help someone starving to death live a humane life...Well there is oral sex, but I digress :rolleyes: .

So to recapp, The City by the Live Sea does support nations teaching every aspect of sex education BUT we do not think it needs to be a UN-mandated law.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

I have voted for this resolution as i believe that it is a great double role in that it could help stem the tide as far as underage sex, pregnancy and STD/I's. At the same time it would also promote greater understanding for homosexual and other sexual minority groups.

I vote in favour of this proposal. Wonderfully written. Let the sexually conservative hypocrits come and I shall be ready for them. :D

Debating as to why this is an issue is to miss the point entirely. You are either in favour or against the idea. Vote according to your opinion. I believe it should be our goal as UN members to shape the UN in our image. If it isn't wanted as a resolution then it will not be passed. We must accept the judgement of the majority.

Greetings ruler of Love and esterel! I want to let you know that I have voted FOR this resolution.

Although, we aim to have the best citizens in the world, we have found that many of them as well as citizens of many other nations are shy and ignorant in this matter. Making this pleasurable experience a nightmare to deal with.

And since we openly invite people from other nations to our country, this resolution will make sure that the immigrants and tourists are well aware about Sex.


I have sent you an interesting book I bought from a visit to India last year, for your reading pleasure.

Good Luck for your future endeavours.

I'm currently undecided. I can't fully approve of such micromanagement, but on the other hand I agree with the idea behind the proposal. As such, I will likely end up abstaining.

Well I cannot possibly support the resolution on religious grounds, as it is to strict in what it beleives should be taught, as it does not take into consideration the beliefs and religious views of a specific nation, as it implies endorsement for sex before marriage and for abortion and artificial birth control. The result of the resolution therefore would be to force secular views on a nation restricting them too much, particularly not consdiering religious views of nations, particular catholic ones. I do however support the idea of sex education but not in this form as I have stated above.

I'm currently undecided. I can't fully approve of such micromanagement, but on the other hand I agree with the idea behind the proposal. As such, I will likely end up abstaining.
This pretty accurately sums up Ecopoeia's position at present.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Why included abortion rights and anything about same or opposite sex relations? These are not sex education topics. Teach what sex is, that it is not some dirty little secret, the basic functiojns of the body parts, the consequences of unprotected sex (STDs, pregnancy), the alternatives to these consequences (no problem with mentioning that abortion).
After all, what is the purpose of this? To reduce unwanted pregnancies and STDs through education right? So, keep the political agenda out of this, stick to EDUCATION and I will support a resolution in favor of sex EDUCATION.
What you have here is not it.

OOC: I do not like this resolution for one simple reason: It's another one of those pointless resolutions that do nothing but affect stats. "It urges," but doesn't make anyone do anything. Hence, it should not pass (but probably will, seeing as people don't seem to get the futility of these resolutions).

It is particularly veracious as it will probably end up blocking a future resolution that does do something, because people will bitch and moan about redundancy without realising that it is this one this is the utterly redundant one.

IC: Please, reject this resolution and bring forth one that will accomplish something other than cost money.

What on earth does the UN have to do with this subject. Are the rest of the serious issues in the world so trivial that we can start introducing bills like this!? For all the evil and sickness in the world THIS is the subject that is introduced? I submit that this body has completly gotten off the track and all delegates here need to seriously reconsider why we are all here!

WITH NO VALUE JUDGMENT???
It looked okay for a while there, then they started sticking in stuff that has no place.. and the magical number of 18.. and finally with that line, it loses all credibility. Sex without values is a powerful evil and everyone knows it.

To be honest I have to agree with some comments why is this a UN issue most countries have a right to deal with sex ed inside their own boarders but if i had to vote I would vote no because of the 2nd urge with two phases: same-sex relationships, and abortion rights????! First off abortion rights have very little to do with sex education. Second if there is a same-sex relationship or even opposite-sex relationship what again does that have to do with sex Ed, which would seem more like what is call PSYCHOLOGY. :rolleyes:

OOC: I do not like this resolution for one simple reason: It's another one of those pointless resolutions that do nothing but affect stats. "It urges," but doesn't make anyone do anything. Hence, it should not pass (but probably will, seeing as people don't seem to get the futility of these resolutions).

Heh, that's the very reason I don't oppose this resolution: because it respects national sovereignty. Call me "new age", but I just don't like unilateral decisions from the UN. I think they're naive, and imprudent.

So, I don't actively oppose this resolution. My vote, though, will be decided by the poll in my region.

Second if there is a same-sex relationship or even opposite-sex relationship what again does that have to do with sex Ed

People have relationships when they have sex. Now, I don't know how limited your experience is, but to say that same-sex or opposite-sex relationships have nothing to do with sex or sex-ed is, well, stupid. There are other things to object to in this resolution without having to resort to thinly veiled homophobia.

Heh, that's the very reason I don't oppose this resolution: because it respects national sovereignty.

By doing nothing. It has no point - passing this resolution will have the same effect as not passing it, but passing it will just adjust your stats, and not passing it won't. The futility is glaring.

The government of Kimbecker is not trying to go against the powers of the UN to make important decisions, but hello? What on earth are we voting on this for? Sexual education is something that should be left to the individual governments to decide upon. I'm sorry, sex is great and all, but ridiculous for the UN to consider ruling about. I believe all the points in the resolution to be valid, but I think it makes a mockery of this united body of nations! I can only hope that the region of New Texas of which my nation is a part of chooses to vote against this resolution.

To be honest I have to agree with some comments why is this a UN issue most countries have a right to deal with sex ed inside their own boarders but if i had to vote I would vote no because of the 2nd urge with two phases: same-sex relationships, and abortion rights????! First off abortion rights have very little to do with sex education. Second if there is a same-sex relationship or even opposite-sex relationship what again does that have to do with sex Ed, which would seem more like what is call PSYCHOLOGY. :rolleyes:
Same sex relationships ARE part of sex ed as it is about a persons sexuality and people should be guided to see that all loving relationships are valid. Abortion is also a part of sex education as it is one of the most ragic consequences of sex and young girls in particular should know what happens so they can avoid going through it themselves.

Well I cannot possibly support the resolution on religious grounds, as it is to strict in what it beleives should be taught, as it does not take into consideration the beliefs and religious views of a specific nation, as it implies endorsement for sex before marriage and for abortion and artificial birth control. The result of the resolution therefore would be to force secular views on a nation restricting them too much, particularly not consdiering religious views of nations, particular catholic ones. I do however support the idea of sex education but not in this form as I have stated above.

I note that the resolution uses urges, rather than mandates. It is trying to encourage a more robust level of sex education throughout the world. However, if a nation feels this goes against their beliefs, they will still have the right to not teach the appropriate articles that they oppose

I would also like to enquire how it encourages sex before marriage?

---------------------

Why included abortion rights and anything about same or opposite sex relations?

To encourage acceptance of other beliefs. To understand the pros and cons, in particular, regarding abortion. To encourage tolerance of those who have made choices that you would not make. Etc

These are not sex education topics.

It is - for the entire purpose is to remove the "ickiness" of sex - and that applies to all things related to sex.

Teach what sex is, that it is not some dirty little secret, the basic functiojns of the body parts, the consequences of unprotected sex (STDs, pregnancy), the alternatives to these consequences (no problem with mentioning that abortion).

We teach that as well

After all, what is the purpose of this? To reduce unwanted pregnancies and STDs through education right?

Also to remove hesitancy about it and to raise awareness of the practices conducted by people (like oral) and to remove the queasyness (sp?) of the topic.

So, keep the political agenda out of this, stick to EDUCATION and I will support a resolution in favor of sex EDUCATION.
What you have here is not it.

This is sex education - it is education about sex. Therefore, by definition, it is sex education.

------------------------------
What on earth does the UN have to do with this subject.

Because it is a topic that nations should consider.

Are the rest of the serious issues in the world so trivial that we can start introducing bills like this!?

No, the rest of the issues in the world don't have enough discussion about them so we end up dealing with "trivial" issues such as sex education and transgender rights because, well, they are better than half-ass, poorly written crap that does less than nothing, is built upon stupid ideas, or operates with only arguments that "God doesn't want you blah blah blah". As such, this now gets priority because people aren't putting forth good ideas on other topics.

For all the evil and sickness in the world THIS is the subject that is introduced?

Dare I ask why this is evil or sick?

I submit that this body has completly gotten off the track and all delegates here need to seriously reconsider why we are all here!

Hardly, we're debating a resolution that suggests that UN members may wish to introduce sex education - and on a variety of different topics

=======================
WITH NO VALUE JUDGMENT???
It looked okay for a while there, then they started sticking in stuff that has no place.. and the magical number of 18..

18 was stuck in so it is covered by passed resolutions regarding guaranteed education

and finally with that line, it loses all credibility. Sex without values is a powerful evil and everyone knows it.

Then go ahead and teach the values that surround sex. This resolution neither requires you to teach what is listed here, nor does it require you to not teach beyond the curriculum suggested here. If you wish to teach values, that is the perogative of your own nation to go beyond the basic teachings this resolution requests


More to come when I get a break

By doing nothing. It has no point - passing this resolution will have the same effect as not passing it, but passing it will just adjust your stats, and not passing it won't. The futility is glaring.
Well, that's one way of looking at it.

The way I look at it is that nations need leeway and flexibility in making individual decisions for their individual situations. A resolution which "did anything" more than this resolution would actually hurt nations' ability to adequately provide sex education for their citizens. I personally think that the ol' days of "everyone must do exactly what I'm doing!" resolutions weren't only childish and mis-considered, but a little arrogant, too.

But, obviously, you're entitled to your opinion. And I respect your decision to vote Against.

I don't think that this is the UN's responsability. Sexual Education should be left to the individual countries, not an international sub-comittee.

And further, if passed, the content of the Sexual Education should be left up to the individual countries, not the UN. Countries should not be forced to teach about same-sex relations if that country has a strong feel that same-sex relations are immoral and illegal. It's not the UN's place to interfere in a situation such as this.

In my nation, sex ed is instituted in the home, by the parents. There are guides published for parents (if they want/need them) by the church on how to approach educating your children about sex. Abstinence before marriage is the norm.

Why should the UN force nations to enact laws requiring sexual education? Children develop at different rates both physically and intellectually. It should be up to the people who know them best (i.e. their parents) to determine when sex ed should begin for their child. Forcing the issue before the child is ready could have ill effects. Furthermore, will the UN determine the whole curriculum for all its member nations? There are things that I personally would rather discuss with my child, instead of in a cold classroom environment with 30 other kids. There is also potential for subject matter to be introduced that I don't want my child to practise or even consider as a viable option. Leave sexual education to the parents, or at the very least, let individual nations decide how it will be handled. The UN has many other more important issues/problems to address worldwide -- leave this moral decision to those more qualified to handle it.

Heh, that's the very reason I don't oppose this resolution: because it respects national sovereignty. Call me "new age", but I just don't like unilateral decisions from the UN. I think they're naive, and imprudent.

So, I don't actively oppose this resolution.Seems kinda shallow not to oppose something simply because it respects national sovereignty, doesn't it? What about the proposal's content? I myself find it excessively silly and culturally insensitive besides, so I oppose it, and have cast my region's 12 votes thusly.

The Government of Cleve-land believes this is a National issue, not a UN issue. We will have to further explore the issue before voting. One thing left off the resolution is education about a woman's G-Spot. Women should enjoy sexual relations and satisfaction to its fullest as well as men. We believe this has been wrongly left out of the resolution and should be added.

As UN delegate for the Government of Cleve-land, I shall have to retire to study the issue of sex education further by reading "educational" materials, viewing "educational" movies and studying techniques and applying them. I shall report my findings prior to the end of voting, which then I shall apply the Governmant of Cleve-lands vote.

OOC: I do not like this resolution for one simple reason: It's another one of those pointless resolutions that do nothing but affect stats. "It urges," but doesn't make anyone do anything. Hence, it should not pass (but probably will, seeing as people don't seem to get the futility of these resolutions).

It is particularly veracious as it will probably end up blocking a future resolution that does do something, because people will bitch and moan about redundancy without realising that it is this one this is the utterly redundant one.

IC: Please, reject this resolution and bring forth one that will accomplish something other than cost money.

OOC: "Urges" resolutions still do things. Look at the real United Nations. Its resolutions move nations in the direciton of its legislation. The problem here is the idea that the UN is a "Federal" government. It is not. Take my Mitigation of Large Reservoirs resolution. When the NationStates daily issue about dams comes up, every UN member will be free to errect large reservoirs / dams with a button click. The game doesn't care about the *text* of UN resolutions. The UN never has and never will really be able to *Demand* something ... so naturally "Urges", "Recommends", "Suggests" are used instead.

Look at all of these styled resolutions for Roleplaying opps. :)

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has cast our vote against this resolution becuse we feel that the UN should not be dictating what its member's educational systems teach.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I am against this resolution because it promotes abortion rights.

It is believed that a woman should have the right to choose. What about the child's right to life? Is a human life a chice? No, murder is not a woman's right.

I will be glad when this will pass. Then, finally, someone will HAVE to tell me what that thingy between my legs is made for! :fluffle:

What on earth does the UN have to do with this subject. Are the rest of the serious issues in the world so trivial that we can start introducing bills like this!? For all the evil and sickness in the world THIS is the subject that is introduced? I submit that this body has completly gotten off the track and all delegates here need to seriously reconsider why we are all here!

maybe, you think that sex education is not a serious subject, we respect your views
but sex is the origine of Life and sex is a source of hapiness for many people (sex increase self-confidence, health, sex decrease depression, these are scientific facts)

as we think that Life is important and hapiness is important, then we think sex and sex education are important subjects


In my nation, sex ed is instituted in the home, by the parents.

Why should the UN force nations to enact laws requiring sexual education?

This resolution don't criticize sex education by parents or churches, and don't intend to replace it or to modify it

We just wonder that in some nations, for example: some people have never been told about female sexuality (which is not perfectly symetric to male sexuality) or don't really understand that sex can lead to pregnancy
and we would like every people know, because we think sex is a source of hapiness and we think to have a child is a will of 2 people loving each other

I voted against this legislation not just on the grounds that it is not the UN's responsibility to urge such legislation, but on the grounds that the recommendations are slanted towards one camp's views on sexuality. If we really want to be as objective as we say we want to be, then things like abstinence education (the most effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc.) must be included.

Vote Nay.

I voted against this legislation not just on the grounds that it is not the UN's responsibility to urge such legislation, but on the grounds that the recommendations are slanted towards one camp's views on sexuality. If we really want to be as objective as we say we want to be, then things like abstinence education (the most effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc.) must be included.

Vote Nay.

Actually in real life it has shown that Abstinence programs don't prevent sex but they do stop the use of contraception as they do not explain it, they simply say "this is wrong, don't do it or else"

I voted against this legislation not just on the grounds that it is not the UN's responsibility to urge such legislation, but on the grounds that the recommendations are slanted towards one camp's views on sexuality. If we really want to be as objective as we say we want to be, then things like abstinence education (the most effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc.) must be included.

Vote Nay.

please, let us know if we are wrong but we didn't find any Operative Clauses in voted resolution about STD other than AIDS.

we agree with you, but we would like to understand the difference between abstinence and the following position:

""i don't drive anymore: even to visit my parents, even to go to the see with my children....... because driving is one of the most important mortality cause""

Memo to His Holyness:

Yeah, I owe you five, they did indeed put it to vote. Days like
this I'm glad we aren't members.


J.B. Heyward
Observer to the UN

the people of Alfghanistan have long accepted human sexuality as an important and healthy part of our lifestyle.

It amazes us that many of our Bumpkin neighbors would keep education on the subject from their people. We can only assume these nations (Since they continue to exist ) do have sex, but very bad sex.

We in Alfghanistan have seen the ravages of sexual promiscuity hiding under the blanket of conservative thought and religious ideology, and we know what it has done to the southern United States. To avoid more Kevin Federlines, to deter the Phrase "Who's my baby's daddy?", and seek a happier healthier world the Grand Duke, at the behest of his democratically elected government, on behalf of the Alfghani people, votes for the resoulution in hopes that the people of the world will become a better lay.

-His Serene Majesty,Grand Duke Alf

In Central Eastern NJ, we are taking the position that our sex ed system needs to be reformed, we do not believe the teachers we have now are qualified enough, and nor do we think the courses are comprehensive enough.

We are concerned about other nations facing the same problems who do not have the resources we do with which to reform their systems. But with other problems in the world, we see how it could be difficult to find funding to defeat that problem.

We will enact this resolution, and as for the nations begging national soveriegnty, we believe that they do not understand the consequences (both positive and negative) in being a member of an international lawmaking body like the UN, here at the UN you have to give up some soverignty if you want to be a part of the decision making process OOC- it's not like the real UN where you can just stop a resolution based on soveriegnty infringements you dont like

Fully relizing i am not in the UN i say this. i think that the resoluten should be scaled down to include less on the argument than some of that does not go towards reproductin and mentinaing it at a school would be just plain creepy(like the course now is not creepy enough) so i think that same-sex relationships, masturbation should be striken to avoid unnsesisary budget spending and teaching kids things that have no value in sex-ed

Rotten one UN comment servise.

The Republic of Prosec pledges to leave the UN should this measure pass. Measures such as these are issues to be left each individual nation's peoples, and said measures directly diminish each nation's sovereignty.

The UN should not be a body which forces its values upon minority nations. Prosec adamantly is against such far-reaching sex education (homosexuality is banned within our borders) and urges its fellow UN members to respect the viewpoints of our peoples.

"It urges," but doesn't make anyone do anything. Rather the definition of "mild", no?

In my nation, sex ed is instituted in the home, by the parents. There are guides published for parents (if they want/need them) by the church on how to approach educating your children about sex. Abstinence before marriage is the norm.

Why should the UN force nations to enact laws requiring sexual education? Children develop at different rates both physically and intellectually. It should be up to the people who know them best (i.e. their parents) to determine when sex ed should begin for their child. Forcing the issue before the child is ready could have ill effects. Furthermore, will the UN determine the whole curriculum for all its member nations? There are things that I personally would rather discuss with my child, instead of in a cold classroom environment with 30 other kids. There is also potential for subject matter to be introduced that I don't want my child to practise or even consider as a viable option. Leave sexual education to the parents, or at the very least, let individual nations decide how it will be handled. The UN has many other more important issues/problems to address worldwide -- leave this moral decision to those more qualified to handle it.


The People of East Columbia concur with the concepts presented by the representative from Pahoehoe. We submit the following questions to the forum, and ask that each member consider them carefully:

Is it not the parent's responsibility to raise their children with adequate knowledge of subjects (including sex) they will need to effectively live productive lives in the society of their nation?

If it is not the parent's responsibility, then who's responsibility is it? The state?

By what means does the state gain the responsibility for the raising of children? By the voluntary relinquishing of the responsibility by the parents? Or by the usurpation of the parent's responsibility?

In either case, the nationstate has taken it upon itself to raise said nation's children instead of requiring its citizenry to raise their own children. Yet the nationstate is then willing to allow the UN to tell it how to raise the children of its nation? Why not just require the parents the raise the children instead?

It appears that each nationstate who votes for this resolution is willing to give up its sovereignty to the UN. In other words, the UN can run your country better than you can.

If this is so, then why not just go to your settings link, and turn your new issues off.

The People of East Columbia believe we know better how to raise our nationstate's children than does the UN. Therefore, we do hereby vote against this resolution.

:headbang:

(homosexuality is banned within our borders)

Ummmm... no it's not, there is a resolution ensuring sexual freedom in all UN nations meaning that outlawing Homosexuality is in breach of NSUN Law.

The Holy Empire of Gravlen have still not decided how to vote on this proposal, and we are awaiting some responses from our region. But we have a comment in regard to the statement put forward by the delegate from New Commustan.

I am against this resolution because it promotes abortion rights.
We wonder how the delegate reached this conclusion. The resolution states the following in the last paragraph: -2- [Urges] All Nations to include in these courses, information about ... abortion right.
As far as we understand this resolution, it only encourages nations to better inform their citizens about which rights they have. This resolution is only focused on information. It does not, as far as we can tell, require nor expect that the member states in any way encourages abortion.

All hail!

Vlad T. Hindenschmidt
Deputy ambassador to the UN
for the Holy Empire of Gravlen

The Republic of Prosec pledges to leave the UN should this measure pass. Measures such as these are issues to be left each individual nation's peoples, and said measures directly diminish each nation's sovereignty.

The UN should not be a body which forces its values upon minority nations. Prosec adamantly is against such far-reaching sex education (homosexuality is banned within our borders) and urges its fellow UN members to respect the viewpoints of our peoples.

We've seen nations take stands like this againt the UN, pledging to leave, or even pledging non-compliance while staying in the UN. We've never seen any do so in reaction to such an inactive proposal. Or object to values being forced upon them, and their viewpoints being disrespected, by a resolution that requires they do absolutely nothing.

I am in surrport of this resolution 100%!

I voted for this resolution, I believe sex education is IMPORTANT and can save lives.

This is an important motion. The whole gamut of human experience and motive can be simplistically summed up as love and hatred. However i believe this resolution merely sets out to teach people the basics of the mechanics not the psychology. Biology rather than social education. Information rather than the how and why. At this point, you get the suitable separation of issues.

<quote> -2- All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment <quote> is one hundred percent mechanical.

If someone wishes then to explore the psychology, the cultural value if you like, the fors and against, then thats up to their individual law making bodies.

This then comes up to being about giving people the chance to think about the opposing positions and then come down on one side, the freedom of choice effectively. What then happens as a result of this is what school should be for. Encouraging people to think about their position and role in life compared to other people. Should we deny people the opportunity to learn?

A survey in my country found that people's parents were embarrassed about giving information and People's friends gave misleading and incorrect information.

Lessons can cut through the flim flam and get down to the basics.

I thank you for your attention.

The Ambassador Plenipontiary.

Sex education has no place being publicly mandated in any way it is a personal issue and responsibility how educated each person desires to be therefore i will be voting against.

I voted Yes for this proposition. So many teenagers nowadays get pregnant, contract STD's, and jump into pre-marital sex without understanding both Pro's and Con's. If this act can help to ensure that our Youth are no longer naive, then I support it 100%.

Sex education has no place being publicly mandated in any way

Yea good thing this resolution doesn't do that :rolleyes:

I voted no based on the principle of monkey see monkey do. If you show kids what to do they will do it but they will push the boundries within that topic. If you teach them safe sex, they will have sex but it is unlikely to continue to be safe. Sex, as a purely mechanical act should not be pushed. Sex as part of an intimate relationship is different so I think the proposal should be me along the lines of Intimacy Education, promoting the fact that sex with someone you love is far more enjoyable then a knee trembler behind the bike shed!

It is - for the entire purpose is to remove the "ickiness" of sex - and that applies to all things related to sex.

Will all due respect to the esteemed delegate, the people of the Eternal Kawaii like things related to sex to be "icky".

We have decided to not to support this resolution. We do this with the understanding that, unlike the previous resolution up for vote, this resolution is not in serious conflict with Our peoples' faith. The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii firmly believes in sexual education as part of a child's moral development. However, We believe this to be an issue for family and church, not for the UN.

We also look with suspicion upon the phrase in article 2 of the resolution, "without any value judgment." As our painful experience with the previous resolution up for vote has shown, too often phrases like these are truly intended to mean, "without any value judgments I personally disagree with." It is for this reason that We argue that holy and awesome matters like sexuality are too important to be bandied about within the halls of the NSUN.

Will all due respect to the esteemed delegate, the people of the Eternal Kawaii like things related to sex to be "icky".

We have decided to not to support this resolution. We do this with the understanding that, unlike the previous resolution up for vote, this resolution is not in serious conflict with Our peoples' faith. The Holy Otaku Church of the Eternal Kawaii firmly believes in sexual education as part of a child's moral development. However, We believe this to be an issue for family and church, not for the UN.

We also look with suspicion upon the phrase in article 2 of the resolution, "without any value judgment." As our painful experience with the previous resolution up for vote has shown, too often phrases like these are truly intended to mean, "without any value judgments I personally disagree with." It is for this reason that We argue that holy and awesome matters like sexuality are too important to be bandied about within the halls of the NSUN.

what if the family and church dont want to talk about it, whwere will the child go to seek help? no where.

OOC: I do not like this resolution for one simple reason: It's another one of those pointless resolutions that do nothing but affect stats. "It urges," but doesn't make anyone do anything. Hence, it should not pass (but probably will, seeing as people don't seem to get the futility of these resolutions).

It is particularly veracious as it will probably end up blocking a future resolution that does do something, because people will bitch and moan about redundancy without realising that it is this one this is the utterly redundant one.

IC: Please, reject this resolution and bring forth one that will accomplish something other than cost money.


The People of East Columbia would like to direct the attention of the Delegates who are intending to "abstain" from voting on this resolution, to the above post.

If you are abstaining, someone else gets to decide what your nation's stats will be, should this resolution pass/fail.

If you do not like the resulting change in your nation's stats, your only recourse is to vote either for or against the resolution (or drop out of the UN).

If you vote for the resolution, and it fails, you are no worse off than you are right now.

If you vote for the resolution, and it passes, you are improving (as you see it) your nation; although you have not necessarily reserved the control of your nation exclusively to yourself.

If you vote against the resolution and it passes, your nation will be worse off than it was before.

If you vote against the resolution, and it fails, you will have reserved the control of your nation exclusively to yourself (until next time).

These are the options you have whether you are considering abstaining, voting for, or voting against this resolution.

:headbang:

what if the family and church dont want to talk about it, whwere will the child go to seek help? no where.

Perhaps the esteemed delegate would care to explain to the assembled delegates here how the ROADP is in a position to judge whether other nations, churches and families do not want to talk about it?

I am not in a positon to judge them, they dont have to talk about it if they dont want to. :)

I belive sex education is important. I know that it is not important as far as the UN is concerned, but do you what uplanned pregancy's, abortions, sex before marriage, children unsure of the consequences of sex, etc...? The more people teach their nations about sex education, the more people can know. This will enable people to make wise decisions. However, some peope will still make bad choices, but that is why things are.

i agree that there should be some sort of sex education in countries but i still believe that theres still something to be said about a "behind the bike shed" sex education.

We have read this resolution over and over, and read all arguments for and against, there are simply too many pros and too many cons. This resolution is inoffensive, but also unproductive...therefore we cannot decide, so until I can see significant arguments for or against this resolution, we abstain.

The Sex Education Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

DEEPLY DISTURBED that in many Nations:
-A- Sexual education is lacking
-B- Education about female sexuality is often unheard of and no mention is made of the clitoris, the statistically most erogenous zone for women, which is not directly correlated with reproduction
-C- Lack of quality sex education can lead, many times, to unplanned teen pregnancies and unnecessary abortion

OBSERVING that:
-D- Sex has two important functions: reproduction and pleasure
-E- Sexual activity is a common activity, contributing to the happiness of many people, worldwide

URGES:
-1- All Nations to organize and secure some sexual education courses for all, before the age of 18-years; and
-2- All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment

Voting Ends: Tue Aug 23 2005


The Constitutional Republic of Tekania, in accordance as dictated by the decision of the serveral planetary dominions in membership of this Republic; abstains our vote on this resolutions; under grounds of its inapplicability to any situation of universal nature; impacting the nations and planets of these United Nations...

Fine but you must think of your children if not then who will.

The Community of the Frozen Chosen casts its vote for this resolution without reservation.

While 18 may be a bit late for sex education, we view this as a strong step in the right direction. Education of all forms is of the utmost importance, and sex education is one of the most important fields for reasons which are hopefully obvious to all the esteemed delegates gathered here today. We also wish to add our support to the use of "Urges", believing that its respect for sovereignty while push for rights represents a good balance.

To those questioning the freedom of religious/family based sex education under this proposal, The Community's delegation encourages you to remember the term "urges" and submits that such education could easily continue. The resolution only seeks to add a purely factual discussion of sexual issues to every youth's education, leaving moral discusions to the religious institution and/or family.

Thank you for you time, and we urge you to vote in favor of this mild, but important resolution.

Mark Heln
UN Delegate

For those who are abstaining from voting because there are too much of a miz of positives and negitives, remember this, that if it passes, you get stuck with all the negitives. If you vote against this, there can soon be a resolution passed similar to this with much less negitives and possibly even more positives. Just because you agree with one part of the argument doesn't mean that you should be forced into accepting the whole of the document. That is basic political strategy 101. If in doubt, vote against the resolution and vote for the resolution if it comes back better stated.

This is how I approach every issue. The only reason I would abstain is if I had no interest whatsoever in what's going on with the issue. I would hope people also see voting in the international legislature the same way.

I voted against this resolution because I think Sex Ed is something that should be left for the parents to handle. Governments have enough time funding other pieces without needed to make room for a new division. If you think that the government should put Sex Ed into the national bugdet, then vote so in your own country, but do not force others into having to do it as well. That's just being arrogant.

Sex Ed opens a child's mind to sexuality at a young age and is responsable for as many unplanned pregnancies and STD transfers as it helps, if not more. Think about when you were in school and you were interesting in the night sky, then in school the next day, an astronaut comes it. You then become interested in being an astronaut. Taking this the same way, if a child is going through puberty and suddenly becomes interested in what can happen with that thing down their pants, and someone comes in school the next day explaining how to do it safely, then the child with gennerally become more interested in sex.

What sex ed causes is a child's mind to broaden, and it is not a direction that Raregrove wishes to broaden. Leave Sex Education up to the governments to decide how and where it is taught. The cons for implementing this are far greater than the pros.

This resolution doesnt force national government to fund Sex Ed classes.
Please notes the word "urges" in this resolution.

While I agree with you rare grove that SexEd is a slippery slope when it comes to the mind of a child, this child will be exposed to sex anyway. Unless of course yours is a society that censors the media, but in our nation it is unfortunate to say that if you flip on your television even on a young person's tv station, there is sexual content on the shows, and even the mere commercials. Children will be exposed to it one way or another, while we are still abstaining from the vote we could easily make the argument that we would rather teach a child the dangers and other aspects of sexual behavior in school, than have him/her solely taught by teen magazines and "Reality" tv shows, as well as beer commercials. I'm not saying one way or another whether this resolution is good or bad, which is why I am not voting, but it is not so much for us there are too many negatives and positives, but none of either.

This resolution for the most part would affect our nation very little or not at all, so part of us says why not let is pass, and the other part says why bother trying to make it pass. So until great negatives or positives can be shown and pointed out in this resolution, we will not vote.

Our nation already has mandatory full sex education, including same sex relationships, in schools for all children, which is taught between the ages of 10 and 12 before they become sexually active. As a result of this, we have a low teen pregancy rate.

As they old saying goes, knowledge is power or in this case forewarned is forearmed. People will have sex, thats a fact and proper education is the best way to give them the straight facts and information they will need to protect themselves at that time.

Waterana will vote for this resolution.

I Disagree with this proposal to an extent. While i do agree that sex education should be encouraged, it should NOT be forced onto the citizens. Most citizens do not wish to subject themselves to this sort of stuff, and it will only create a backlash from the religous community.

So my final judgement is NO. Cititzens should have the freedom to chocie whenever or not to be taught this sort of stuff.

I Disagree with this proposal to an extent. While i do agree that sex education should be encouraged, it should NOT be forced onto the citizens. Most citizens do not wish to subject themselves to this sort of stuff, and it will only create a backlash from the religous community.

So my final judgement is NO. Cititzens should have the freedom to chocie whenever or not to be taught this sort of stuff.

This resolution urges nations to provide access to sex education, it doesn't force anything on nations or their people.

I vote FOR it! Sex Ed is good for nations. I dont want teens running around pregnant.

Why does homosexuality have to be included? I do realize that there is homosexuals in the great NationStates land but we should not teach this to our students like we would about careers. Going about it this way will cause an effect in which they think they have a choice, to be Straight or Gay, it should not work like that. It is (well in some cases) not a conscience decision. You are what you are.

Also, Sex is meant to be between a man and a woman. Their parts fit together (not to be too visual but I do belive we all have all seen our own parts :) ) and Sex though pleasurable is not meant for pleasure. It is meant to reproduce and birth children.

I will be voting AGAINST this proposal. I will however consider voting for an updated version of it.

I've seen two men fitting together quite nicely. :)

I would also say that this resolution is not about teaching anyone to be a homosexual.

The Sex Education Act



URGES:
-1- All Nations to organize and secure some sexual education courses for all, before the age of 18-years; and
-2- All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment

Voting Ends: Tue Aug 23 2005

I am not saying that this resolution is teaching on how to be homosexual, I am saying that why must we include it in Sex Education when it is not the natural way. Why must we include it only because a large enough group belives it right? Would we have to include in Sex Education the sexual relationships between people who enjoy sex with animals if there were the same amount of "animal lovers" as there is Homosexuals?

I do not agree with your offensive comparsion between beastality and homosexuality. Homosexuality is natural and it can be observed in the animal kingdom. Anyways, this is not a place to discuss this issue, i think.

Sincerely
Hermione Granger, Spokeswoman of ROADP.

You may have Gay rabbits in your forests, Mrs. Granger, but certinely not in Queso Pinguino's.

Why do you not think that his is the place to discuss this here? This is certinaly the place it should be discussed being that their is a proposal that may or may not be passed to excuse such crude information such as what we are discussing to be taught to our children.

I believe that others should see this so that if they had not they may realize some of the issues at hand and be able to vote one way or another instead of staying voiceless in the NS UN.

-Pres. Aeiis Chindalia of The People's Republic of Queso Pinguino

This resolution urges nations to provide access to sex education, it doesn't force anything on nations or their people.

So if it "urges" than why is this even up for debate? If all in all this isnt a forced tactic and governments are not being "forced" to show 8 year olds pornography, than why O why was this proposal even approved?

Any Communist or left-wing nation should vote no. Its the efforts of the parents not the "church" to educate our children about sex.

So if it "urges" than why is this even up for debate? If all in all this isnt a forced tactic and governments are not being "forced" to show 8 year olds pornography, than why O why was this proposal even approved?

Any Communist or left-wing nation should vote no. Its the efforts of the parents not the "church" to educate our children about sex.

I agree with you totally, Leader of Red Peril Communists. Do not let this Proposal pass due to it's numerous inconsistinces.

It does nothing, it's worth nothing.

You may have Gay rabbits in your forests, Mrs. Granger, but certinely not in Queso Pinguino's.

Why do you not think that his is the place to discuss this here? This is certinaly the place it should be discussed being that their is a proposal that may or may not be passed to excuse such crude information such as what we are discussing to be taught to our children.

I believe that others should see this so that if they had not they may realize some of the issues at hand and be able to vote one way or another instead of staying voiceless in the NS UN.

-Pres. Aeiis Chindalia of The People's Republic of Queso Pinguino


I am not Mrs.Granger. I am Miss. Granger.

Dear Pres. Aeiss Chindalia

I was striclty talking about REAL LIFE when i said that homosexuality can be observed in the animal kingdom, no one can say anything otherwise. And besides, homosexuality has been offically supported by the United Nations long time ago, this resolution only reaffirms that.

And if this resolution forced nations to fund sex education, than it will never pass because some nations cannot afford this.
The idea is to send a symbolic message that sex education is important and that is a good in itself.

I am not Mrs.Granger. I am Miss. Granger.

Dear Pres. Aeiss Chindalia

I was striclty talking about REAL LIFE when i said that homosexuality can be observed in the animal kingdom, no one can say anything otherwise.

I am not Pres. Aeiss Chindalia. I am Pres. Aeiis Chindalia ;)


I do not see why my example of beastiality is an incorrect one.

1) It is a sexual act.
2) It differs from the actual widely accepted form of intercourse. Man/Woman.

It is the exact same as Homosexuality.

Note that:
-Sex is good
-pregnancy is often a bitch,
imparticulair at a young age
-Aids kills

Aren't these reasons enough to vote for?
We are dealing with a virus, wich we can't cure.
Don't they always say that prevention is better
than curing?

Note that:
-Sex is good
-pregnancy is often a bitch,
imparticulair at a young age
-Aids kills

Aren't these reasons enough to vote for?
We are dealing with a virus, wich we can't cure.
Don't they always say that prevention is better
than curing?

Sure, Prevention is good, but teaching children about their abortion rights doesn't prevent anything, it encourages!

Sex Education is not what I am against, it is the curriculum included in the class that bothers me.

I am not Pres. Aeiss Chindalia. I am Pres. Aeiis Chindalia ;)


I do not see why my example of beastiality is an incorrect one.

1) It is a sexual act.
2) It differs from the actual widely accepted form of intercourse. Man/Woman.

It is the exact same as Homosexuality.


its a sexual act between different species compared to a sexual act between persons.
:rolleyes:

I am not Pres. Aeiss Chindalia. I am Pres. Aeiis Chindalia ;)


I do not see why my example of beastiality is an incorrect one.

1) It is a sexual act.
2) It differs from the actual widely accepted form of intercourse. Man/Woman.

It is the exact same as Homosexuality.

Of course its different. If a person has sex with an animal in Waterana they will find themselves in court charged with animal cruelty.

A homosexual couple consisting of two consenting adults who agree to a sexual relationship cannot be compared with a person who rapes an animal which cannot give informed consent to the act. Simple really.

I am voting YES, for reasosn that have been repeated above. Also, I don't know how true this is, but I heard that 25% of woman either don't or do have an orgasm. I doubt 1 billion woman abstain from sex. Even if they WEREN'T forced into marriage.

Warning: this may turn out to be a "Forgottenlord long post". If you are someone just skimming through, check to see if your name is quoted and read. Otherwise.....read at your own risk. I take no responsibility for any exhaustion, boredom, or instances of losing track of time and being late for whatever even you may be expected at - or any other issue you may have aside from disagreement with the following statements

Also, as with most of these posts, I may get a little cranky and I apologize in advance

------------------------------


To be honest I have to agree with some comments why is this a UN issue most countries have a right to deal with sex ed inside their own boarders

It is still held as a right for countries to dictate their own curriculum - since it is a recommendation resolution

but if i had to vote I would vote no because of the 2nd urge with two phases: same-sex relationships, and abortion rights????! First off abortion rights have very little to do with sex education.

Hardly. It is an option out there should one get pregnant (as determined by the passed resolution, "Abortion Rights"). Pregnancy is very relevant to sex education

Second if there is a same-sex relationship or even opposite-sex relationship what again does that have to do with sex Ed, which would seem more like what is call PSYCHOLOGY. :rolleyes:

Relationships are pretty standard topics for sex ed, why should same sex relationships be excluded - especially since they have been legalized, and marriage between same sex partners has been legalized.

---------------------------

By doing nothing. It has no point - passing this resolution will have the same effect as not passing it, but passing it will just adjust your stats, and not passing it won't. The futility is glaring.

Actually, passing it will make some nations implement it even if they wouldn't have otherwise (just 'cause, or because they don't realize it's a recommendation resolution). Also, there is something to be said for an "International Moral standard", which I think exists by the passing of resolutions.....

--------------------------

The government of Kimbecker is not trying to go against the powers of the UN to make important decisions, but hello? What on earth are we voting on this for? Sexual education is something that should be left to the individual governments to decide upon.

In my opinion, it is the UN's jurisdiction to say that we need to teach Sex Ed. It is the individual government's decision on what constitutes Sex Ed. Regardless, I note that this is a recommendation resolution, if you choose not to implement it, that's your choice. It is not forcing your government to teach sex ed or what topics of sex ed you have to teach.

I'm sorry, sex is great and all, but ridiculous for the UN to consider ruling about.

The naivity of sex is astonishing and certainly, as a virgin, I would love to know more about the technical details of it so I'm not as nervous when I finally get laid. The fact that I have learnt more from porn than I have from class or my parents regarding the intricacies of Sex.......

Class has taught me the stages of pregnancy, the importance of birth control (STDs and Pregnancy) and relationship issues. As a general overview, that's great. However, it wasn't until my first year at University that someone (it was actually the Students Union) taught how to use a condom correctly.

I believe all the points in the resolution to be valid, but I think it makes a mockery of this united body of nations! I can only hope that the region of New Texas of which my nation is a part of chooses to vote against this resolution.

I hope that your hope is reconsidered

--------------------------------

I don't think that this is the UN's responsability. Sexual Education should be left to the individual countries, not an international sub-comittee.

And further, if passed, the content of the Sexual Education should be left up to the individual countries, not the UN. Countries should not be forced to teach about same-sex relations if that country has a strong feel that same-sex relations are immoral and illegal. It's not the UN's place to interfere in a situation such as this.

1) Your nation has the right to decide whether it will teach sex education or not. It has the right what the curriculum of sex education is. It has the right to have a curriculum BEYOND that which is mentioned in this resolution. Why do rights continue to exist, the word "URGES" in the resolution makes this an optional resolution
2) Your nation does not, however, have the right to declare same-sex relationships as illegal. They have been protected and permitted to marry under various resolutions.

----------------------------

In my nation, sex ed is instituted in the home, by the parents. There are guides published for parents (if they want/need them) by the church on how to approach educating your children about sex. Abstinence before marriage is the norm.

I note the number of households in the world (even in the most religious of countries) where neglect of either all the children or the extreme preferential treatment of one or some children over the other that leads to the neglect of others means that many children then leave these households knowing nothing about sex and know not why "God gave them these parts". The causes of this range from all sorts of reasons (including priority of work, adoptive children being second class, first-born-son preference (I get that one waaaaay too much from my Grandma), abusive household, to just plain not caring). As such, I believe the state is truly ducking it's responsibility to guarantee a proper education of these children on this subject by making it something for the household to worry about and not the state.

Why should the UN force nations

They aren't. I note the word "URGES"
to enact laws requiring sexual education? Children develop at different rates both physically and intellectually.

Unfortunately, so do parents

It should be up to the people who know them best (i.e. their parents) to determine when sex ed should begin for their child. Forcing the issue before the child is ready could have ill effects.

Such as?

Furthermore, will the UN determine the whole curriculum for all its member nations?

Nope, again, that key word. If you haven't noticed, these are topics of recommendation

There are things that I personally would rather discuss with my child, instead of in a cold classroom environment with 30 other kids. There is also potential for subject matter to be introduced that I don't want my child to practise or even consider as a viable option.

I would rather teach my child and teach them why it's wrong. If you leave them ignorant, someone will teach them and they will not know the problems with it.

Leave sexual education to the parents, or at the very least, let individual nations decide how it will be handled.

We did

The UN has many other more important issues/problems to address worldwide -- leave this moral decision to those more qualified to handle it.

"Moral" decision?

I see only two resolutions in quarom - and both regarding the same thing - what animals should and shouldn't be protected. Further, I don't see any proposals going through the queue that are worthy of consideration and on the forum, a total of 2 I think worthy of the UN's time, 4 that I think have a prayer reaching quarom (and less than half that I think have a prayer of reaching quarom actually do), and only ONE that I think is more worthy of the UN's time than this one. Sorry, I don't buy that argument. I never have, and I won't until the UN is so bloated with draft proposals that it, quite frankly, can't look at them all. We'll overload the queue first - and I think the mods might have the power to increase the number of resolutions on the floor if it becomes necessary.

--------------------------

Seems kinda shallow not to oppose something simply because it respects national sovereignty, doesn't it? What about the proposal's content? I myself find it excessively silly and culturally insensitive besides, so I oppose it, and have cast my region's 12 votes thusly.

Says who he is disregarding the proposal's content. I'm sure that if we started pushing a resolution that said "recommends all nations sentance anyone who believes in god to death", PC would oppose it anyways.

Why is it culturally insensitive? It protects nation's right to decide which topics they teach so they can deal with it themselves so it suits their culture (and WHO teaches it)

---------------------------

The Government of Cleve-land believes this is a National issue, not a UN issue.

This is a recommendation resolution (as indicated by the word "URGES"). As such, your nation controls what you actually do with it - or if you junk it altogether

We will have to further explore the issue before voting. One thing left off the resolution is education about a woman's G-Spot. Women should enjoy sexual relations and satisfaction to its fullest as well as men. We believe this has been wrongly left out of the resolution and should be added.

Your nation has the right to teach above and beyond the limitations of this resolution. This resolution does not limit what you are capable of teaching

As UN delegate for the Government of Cleve-land, I shall have to retire to study the issue of sex education further by reading "educational" materials, viewing "educational" movies and studying techniques and applying them. I shall report my findings prior to the end of voting, which then I shall apply the Governmant of Cleve-lands vote.

Dang, he's getting more action just for doing research than I've gotten in my entire life! *wishes his gf was here right now....

---------------------------
I am against this resolution because it promotes abortion rights.

It is believed that a woman should have the right to choose. What about the child's right to life? Is a human life a chice? No, murder is not a woman's right.

I could argue about whether or not that "child" is alive, but I don't wish to hijack this thread. If you would like to actually have a debate on the matter, TG me. Regardless, the right for a woman to choose and full abortion rights have been granted by a past resolution

--------------------------

I voted against this legislation not just on the grounds that it is not the UN's responsibility to urge such legislation, but on the grounds that the recommendations are slanted towards one camp's views on sexuality. If we really want to be as objective as we say we want to be, then things like abstinence education (the most effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc.) must be included.

This resolution does not limit the topics of teaching to just those listed. You are more than welcome to include abstinence education within your own curriculum

-----------------------

Fully relizing i am not in the UN i say this. i think that the resoluten should be scaled down to include less on the argument than some of that does not go towards reproductin and mentinaing it at a school would be just plain creepy(like the course now is not creepy enough) so i think that same-sex relationships, masturbation should be striken to avoid unnsesisary budget spending and teaching kids things that have no value in sex-ed

Rotten one UN comment servise.

While you are welcome to implement that policy and certainly allowed to hold that opinion, I feel it is inaccurate. When I started masturbating, I did not realize it was masturbating for about 3 years - I just found it a rather pleasurable experience (icky, but pleasurable). As such, I feel that these sorts of things should still be taught.

----------------------

The Republic of Prosec pledges to leave the UN should this measure pass. Measures such as these are issues to be left each individual nation's peoples, and said measures directly diminish each nation's sovereignty.

The UN should not be a body which forces its values upon minority nations. Prosec adamantly is against such far-reaching sex education (homosexuality is banned within our borders) and urges its fellow UN members to respect the viewpoints of our peoples

1) This is a recommendation resolution - you do not have to follow it if you do not wish. It is made a recommendation resolution by the word "urges". As such, I ask you to reconsider your position on staying in the UN
2) Regardless of your position, there have been several passed resolutions that legalize and ban discrimination against homosexuality and a few that have made it so that nations are required to accept same-sex marriages

-------------------------

Rather the definition of "mild", no?

No, that's the definition of useless. Mild means it nudges you rather than forces you by your left ear lobe around the room and keeps tugging until you agree in an oath to God that he smite you and damn your soul to the lowest depths of hell to follow the resolution.

Er....urges would be a nudge, not doing anything would be useless

----------------------

The People of East Columbia concur with the concepts presented by the representative from Pahoehoe. We submit the following questions to the forum, and ask that each member consider them carefully:

I ask you to look at my response to Pahoehoe as well then.

Is it not the parent's responsibility to raise their children with adequate knowledge of subjects (including sex) they will need to effectively live productive lives in the society of their nation?

Perhaps, but if it is, my parents failed miserably. Someone needs to teach people this information if the parents don't. There are no laws to determine the suitability of a parent to teach a child something, there are laws to determine the suitability of a teacher

If it is not the parent's responsibility, then who's responsibility is it? The state?

Yes

By what means does the state gain the responsibility for the raising of children? By the voluntary relinquishing of the responsibility by the parents? Or by the usurpation of the parent's responsibility?


No, it has the responsibility of teaching children. Education is not just math and english. The entire concept of "sex education" is to educate students about sex. Furthermore, teachers may be much more knowledgable about the various components of sex (not just intercourse, but biological effects, issues regarding pregnancy, psychological disorders that can effect one's level of sexual activity, etc). States now teach children about money management, sex, importance of education, ways of thinking......I'm sure I could go on if my brain hadn't frozen....

In either case, the nationstate has taken it upon itself to raise said nation's children instead of requiring its citizenry to raise their own children. Yet the nationstate is then willing to allow the UN to tell it how to raise the children of its nation? Why not just require the parents the raise the children instead?

No, the UN has made recommendations on (again I differentiate the word) how to TEACH the children. This is a recommendation resolution

It appears that each nationstate who votes for this resolution is willing to give up its sovereignty to the UN. In other words, the UN can run your country better than you can.

No sovereignty is given up to the UN by this resolution

If this is so, then why not just go to your settings link, and turn your new issues off.

Because you can change your nation much faster with 10 issues between each resolution being passed minimum. 20 issues could have passed between the time the last resolution passed and this one passes.

The People of East Columbia believe we know better how to raise our nationstate's children than does the UN. Therefore, we do hereby vote against this resolution.

I've said enough - though I note you contradicted yourself

Also - regarding your latter post on abstaining - the entire point of abstaining is to say "I don't feel strongly enough on this issue to support or oppose it - I'll leave it for you guys to decide"

----------------------

Sex education has no place being publicly mandated in any way it is a personal issue and responsibility how educated each person desires to be therefore i will be voting against.

Care to show me where it says "mandated"? I read urges, but not mandated

----------------------

I voted no based on the principle of monkey see monkey do.

Because that has been proven every time parents start suggesting that concept (I note, "video game violence")

If you show kids what to do they will do it but they will push the boundries within that topic. If you teach them safe sex, they will have sex but it is unlikely to continue to be safe.

Yes - so teach them why it is better to have safe sex rather than unsafe sex. Teach them the consequences of their actions - because if you don't, their friends will

Sex, as a purely mechanical act should not be pushed. Sex as part of an intimate relationship is different so I think the proposal should be me along the lines of Intimacy Education, promoting the fact that sex with someone you love is far more enjoyable then a knee trembler behind the bike shed!

Then add that to the curriculum. This resolution does not limit the topics to be taught to just the ones listed

---------------------------

Will all due respect to the esteemed delegate, the people of the Eternal Kawaii like things related to sex to be "icky".

Ickiness doesn't reduce curiosity. It just increases nervousness when the time comes. Nervousness is not the biggest inhibitor to action in this world (church doctrine has probably proven fear is much more effective - and fear, at this stage, is easier to teach than to implement using ignorance) - especially compared to the overwhelming urges of curiosity and rumor.

Regardless....

If one's family is responsible to teach one this subject material, then my family failed miserably. I was left with only the facts of how pregnancy works and whatnot, but had very little information regarding it. I've divulged waaaay too much about my personal life in this post and don't wish to do again so if you feel like reading what has been mentioned above, please do so.

We seem to come out against each other on a lot of these issues as of late (though I would appreciate it if you responded to my response on the Transgender Equality thread)

--------------------------

I Disagree with this proposal to an extent. While i do agree that sex education should be encouraged, it should NOT be forced onto the citizens. Most citizens do not wish to subject themselves to this sort of stuff, and it will only create a backlash from the religous community.

So my final judgement is NO. Cititzens should have the freedom to chocie whenever or not to be taught this sort of stuff.

I note that this is a recommendation resolution. The individual nation maintains its right to set up its education system however it chooses. If it feels that families should have the right to not participate in this education (actually, my gf requested to skip a few classes of sex ed because of her....opinions on it), then that nation has the right to set up their education system to protect that right

-------------------

Why does homosexuality have to be included? I do realize that there is homosexuals in the great NationStates land but we should not teach this to our students like we would about careers. Going about it this way will cause an effect in which they think they have a choice, to be Straight or Gay, it should not work like that. It is (well in some cases) not a conscience decision. You are what you are.

The purpose is not to suggest there is a choice, but to give those who follow that path (whether you believe it to be by choice or by nature) to know what happens on that path.

Also, Sex is meant to be between a man and a woman.

It's not about what it was meant to be. It's about what it is used for and how it is done by most people

Their parts fit together (not to be too visual but I do belive we all have all seen our own parts ) and Sex though pleasurable is not meant for pleasure. It is meant to reproduce and birth children.

This is about education of all things regarding sex. If you have never had sex for pleasure, then I can concede your point. However, this is not true of most people - and it is better to teach them what happens and how it is often done (not to mention the concerns and consequences) rather than to make a false assumption and teach under that assumption.

I will be voting AGAINST this proposal. I will however consider voting for an updated version of it.

I ask you to reconsider your vote on this proposal

------------------------------

Yeah, this is definately Forgottenlord long

------------------------------

I am not saying that this resolution is teaching on how to be homosexual, I am saying that why must we include it in Sex Education when it is not the natural way. Why must we include it only because a large enough group belives it right? Would we have to include in Sex Education the sexual relationships between people who enjoy sex with animals if there were the same amount of "animal lovers" as there is Homosexuals?

1) Because it has been legally guaranteed as being allowed by this United Nations
2) I would actually......make mention of sexual relations with animals. Other forms with inanimate objects I would put under forms of masturbation... Pretty much, if you can get off with it, I'd consider it worthy of teaching

------------------------


So if it "urges" than why is this even up for debate? If all in all this isnt a forced tactic and governments are not being "forced" to show 8 year olds pornography, than why O why was this proposal even approved?

Because it is recommending a system to put in place, for good reason

Any Communist or left-wing nation should vote no. Its the efforts of the parents not the "church" to educate our children about sex.

Normally, that's a right wing view. This resolution discusses state teachings - something that communist countries are quite proud supporters of. We make no mention of a church whatsoever.

-----------------------------


I am not Mrs.Granger. I am Miss. Granger.

Fine, Ms. Granger; happy? :p

---------------------------

um....I'm done. Shall we celebrate?

13.5 screens. I keep getting longer and longer "Forgottenlord post"s

Teaching homosexuality in the school system is making sex a toy or a thing to do, instead of a life creating process between married people. Isn't that really the message we should get across? If you want to stop preteen and teen pregnacies that is how you must introduce it: a life creating process between married people.

Teaching homosexuality in the school system is making sex a toy or a thing to do, instead of a life creating process between married people. Isn't that really the message we should get across? If you want to stop preteen and teen pregnacies that is how you must introduce it: a life creating process between married people.

Because, of course, that is working so, so well these days. The number of people who are engaging in pre-marital sex is astonishingly high in even the most conservative of nations. The family unit is disappearing. You keep telling people "this is the only time you do it", you are not buffering the possibility for all those other times that they'll do it anyways. We believe there's a time and place for these sorts of things, yet there are teenagers having sex in cafeterias while they're crowded. You say something is "wrong" without trying to explain the consequences, without trying to explain issues that exist on all sorts of areas, without showing all viewpoints and perspectives on the matter, they are just going to rebel and we end up with the same consequences. Suggestion that it might only be for purposes of reproduction might exist as a traditional belief, but the fact of the matter is that is not what sex is used for today by the majority - and if we don't note that in the classroom, they will find out by word of mouth.

Warning: this may turn out to be a "Forgottenlord long post". If you are someone just skimming through, check to see if your name is quoted and read. Otherwise.....read at your own risk. I take no responsibility for any exhaustion, boredom, or instances of losing track of time and being late for whatever even you may be expected at - or any other issue you may have aside from disagreement with the following statements

Also, as with most of these posts, I may get a little cranky and I apologize in advance

------------------------------


um....I'm done. Shall we celebrate?

Ha, couldn't quote all that.

I realize that sex is often had for pleasure but do you think you should be telling young children this? I really doubt, with the society we live in today, that we need to show children how sexual act should be done, they will find out for their own. The real mission for Sex Edu. should be to :

1) Prevent Teen Preganancies
2) Prevent the Aids virus and other STDs,

Some of the things included in this proposal do not do that. There is no way I can morally feel right about voting FOR this proposal in it's current state.

And I urge others not to either.

Ha, couldn't quote all that.

I realize that sex is often had for pleasure but do you think you should be telling young children this? I really doubt, with the society we live in today, that we need to show children how sexual act should be done, they will find out for their own. The real mission for Sex Edu. should be to :

1) Prevent Teen Preganancies
2) Prevent the Aids virus and other STDs,

Some of the things included in this proposal do not do that. There is no way I can morally feel right about voting FOR this proposal in it's current state.

And I urge others not to either.

Fine, when you implement your form of this law, you make it so it takes only those into account. Again, it is a recommendation resolution, it doesn't dictate what you must or must not do.

Fine, when you implement your form of this law, you make it so it takes only those into account. Again, it is a recommendation resolution, it doesn't dictate what you must or must not do.
That is understood, it is the principal however that keeps me hard against this proposal being that it's ability to do nothing doesn't keep me quite as edged. :sniper:

Everyone seems to be saying "our children," as in we're exposing children to sex education. I feel like some people are implying that we're showing 7 year olds how to have sexual intercourse. What we have to remember is that most of the students undergoing this education would be of high school age, and therefore hardly children anymore.

Personally, I'd rather have children exposed to all the facts, rather than a slanted version from friends and/or relatives.

Everyone seems to be saying "our children," as in we're exposing children to sex education. I feel like some people are implying that we're showing 7 year olds how to have sexual intercourse. What we have to remember is that most of the students undergoing this education would be of high school age, and therefore hardly children anymore.

Personally, I'd rather have children exposed to all the facts, rather than a slanted version from friends and/or relatives.
Youd prefer to have a government show your children "sexual activity" than the trust and love of your own family? Why in the world would anyone believe its the governments job to teach children about sex? Im sorry I dont. Im not saying take away the information. Exactly the opposite. Im saying have the education available just dont have the "GOVERNMENT" teach it but a family member.

dude youd like to show children porn? Are you sick?

Immature, irrelavant, and not helpful one bit. Please contribute meaningful info or comments in your posts, not just take up space.

I did edit it before you proceeded to rip it apart... thanks for the kind thought though. Its nice to know people like "YOU" are here to judge me.

Whew!

Thank Lenin Im not in your country... you facist.

dude youd like to show children porn? Are you sick?

Sigh, now you're implying that sex ed is porn. Have you ever had a sex ed class? I assure you that there is nothing pornographic about it. The dictionary defines pornogrophy as "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."
The material being taught in sex ed classes is not taught to cause sexual arousal. It is taught in the hopes of educating, so that "children" will be able to fully understand all of the different aspects of sex and its consequenses. If people are never taught about STDs, then they won't understand the dangers of unprotected sex. I believe people should be frank and open about sex and the human body. It's a natural thing and people should not be ashamed or embarassed about their sexuality.

I did edit it before you proceeded to rip it apart... thanks for the kind thought though. Its nice to know people like "YOU" are here to judge me.
Whew!

Thank Lenin Im not in your country... you facist.

Glad to be of service :)

Youd prefer to have a government show your children "sexual activity" than the trust and love of your own family? Why in the world would anyone believe its the governments job to teach children about sex? Im sorry I dont. Im not saying take away the information. Exactly the opposite. Im saying have the education available just dont have the "GOVERNMENT" teach it but a family member.

Sometimes family members don't have all of the facts. So yes, I think it would be better for a qualified offical to teach them. Family members also might be too embarassed to discuss sex with their children.

New Communist:

-do you know the different stages of a baby's (pre-birth) developement?
-do you know how these different stages effect the mother?
-do you know all possible forms of medical assistance are available for pregnant mothers?
-do you know what one shouldn't do when she's pregnant?
-do you know what the signs are that you might be pregnant?
-do you know possible side effects that women may experience during their menstral cycle (aside from PMS)

Obviously, these are fairly much related to women's issues, but the fact of the matter is let's say you're a parent. How many of these answers can you give to your teenage daughter? Unfortunately, I don't have a similar list sitting at the top of my head regarding men.

Anyways - that is only one reason why states should do this. Another is because many families fail to educate their children at any level, period - my own included. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if my gf would also be included.

New Communist:

-do you know the different stages of a baby's (pre-birth) developement?
-do you know how these different stages effect the mother?
-do you know all possible forms of medical assistance are available for pregnant mothers?
-do you know what one shouldn't do when she's pregnant?
-do you know what the signs are that you might be pregnant?
-do you know possible side effects that women may experience during their menstral cycle (aside from PMS)

Obviously, these are fairly much related to women's issues, but the fact of the matter is let's say you're a parent. How many of these answers can you give to your teenage daughter? Unfortunately, I don't have a similar list sitting at the top of my head regarding men.

Anyways - that is only one reason why states should do this. Another is because many families fail to educate their children at any level, period - my own included. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if my gf would also be included.

My response to that is this. Chances are sometime in their life parents have taken this class and if they don't have the answers how do we expect this information to be taken seriously and be remembered by the current student?

My response to that is this. Chances are sometime in their life parents have taken this class and if they don't have the answers how do we expect this information to be taken seriously and be remembered by the current student?

You think this information will be safe in the hands of people who don't know it as opposed to those that do? If they're going to have a source of the information, I want it to at least be a correct source. If the source is bad, and it is one of the 1 in 1000 things they remember, they're remembering false information.

I'll give you an example of this one - again from my experience. My Grade 1/2 teacher (double year class, I was in there both years) taught us that Canada was the biggest nation on the planet. Now, admittedly, at the time it was during the collapse of the Soviet Union, so her information might not have been up to date. However, I clung to that shred of information until, in Grade 9, my Social Studies teacher superimposed the Canadian Map on top of the Russian map in the same scale. Only then did I realize the falsity of my argument. That same teacher told every class she taught the same thing until she ran into my brother's Grade 5 class (I was in Grade 10 at the time) - who challenged her to look it up. For at least 10 years, she had been giving false information, and people like me walked away from those classes with this false information and clinging to it.

I do see what your saying but I think people tend to not take Sex Edu. quite as seriously as other classes. I'm telling you this from experience.

I am not justifying that students should be taught the wrong thing just because the class is not take as seriously as others but this is a completely different direction then my main argument and stand point. I don't like what is included in the curriculum, some of it should not be taught. Simple as that.

When it comes to the curriculum, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree - or we'll end up killing the boards from an excessively long thread.

When it comes to the curriculum, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree - or we'll end up killing the boards from an excessively long thread.

That we shall, I have never really debated quite like this before, man it's exausting...but quite enjoyable :)

That we shall, I have never really debated quite like this before, man it's exausting...but quite enjoyable :)

I can feel your power. Come, give in to your addiction and come to the geek side of the NSUN. It is your destiny!

:p

Nooooo, I musn't....ahh :gundge:

Aw, c'mon...Everybody else is doing it! All the cool kids will want to hang out with you if do. If you don't, we'll beat you up. I did it, now it's your turn.

(Applying the peer pressure always works. Haha.)

Aw, c'mon...Everybody else is doing it! All the cool kids will want to hang out with you if do. If you don't, we'll beat you up. I did it, now it's your turn.

(Applying the peer pressure always works. Haha.)

You've only got 4 posts....even less than he does. You haven't exactly "done it"

My stars, it really doesn'y take book learnin'! Besides STD's cause new drugs to be developed (good for us) and help keep the population down (good for M. Earth) :sniper:
VOTE NO!

Oh, come on now...
Firstly, you want to teach something that ought to come naturally.
Secondly, you want to mandate a federal program teaching something that would be far better explained by the parents as far as pregnancy goes.
Thirdly, this program is going to cost MONEY, money that could be spent on far better things.
Fourthly, this is a bill that is essentaily trying to give the UN the power to micro-manage its member nations. This is something that deffinitely be instituted on a nation-by-nation basis.

So essentailly, there is nothing in this bill that i can see that makes it worthwile.

The Ambassador to the Holy Galactic Empire Of Sock Puppets wholeheartedly agree with the Ambassador to Kitsunenokodomo. Parents need to be PARENTS and stop wanting the government to tell THEIR children what is right or wrong. But we believe it should be on a household-by-household choice.... let the parents choose to send their children to schools that teach sex education, to send them to schools that just teach them the basics to get ahead in life, or to home school their children.

Basically, let the governments take a back seat to responsible parenting.

I'm against it. First of all, this is really one of those local issues, not international. It also neglects the fact that although most of us have human citizens, many nations are extra-terrestial planets and even many on earth have strange creatures. The resolution assumes that all UN members have the same biology. The clause "without any value judgement" is especially problematic when we realize the diverse types of nations in the NSUN. I don't want to drive out members we could help with other resolutions.

And, of course, the resolution never mandates anything, it just 'urges.' So its worthless at best.

13.5 screens. I keep getting longer and longer "Forgottenlord post"s
And it takes a shorter and shorter time for me to decide just to skip them and focus on other posts. I mean, I've heard lots of wonderfully insightful things from you before, but when you start getting "DLE" with your posts--one-liners for pages and pages--it greatly dissaudes me from reading it.

Seems kinda shallow not to oppose something simply because it respects national sovereignty, doesn't it? What about the proposal's content? I myself find it excessively silly and culturally insensitive besides, so I oppose it, and have cast my region's 12 votes thusly.
Well, I don't "not oppose" it, I just "don't actively oppose it". I find that it presents a certain viewpoint and the governance that comes from that, however it does not impose that viewpoint, or that governance upon my government, so I do not actively oppose that viewpoint being expressed (by telegram campaign, extensive forum argument, etc.). I'm not certain how much or how little I agree with it. But since it leaves the door open to disagreement, I feel it not worthy of active opposition.

You know, I understand the sentiment behind this resolution but, if I voted my conciences, I'd vote against it for these reasons:

1. It does violate national sovereignty. This is essentialy a curricular matter for national ministries of education to establish, not an international body. How does this resolution gibe with those nations with a more religious out look, or a theocracy?


2. As an educator in rt, I looked at the following clause a week ago and said to myself huh?



DEEPLY DISTURBED that in many Nations:
-B- Education about female sexuality is often unheard of and no mention is made of the clitoris, the statistically most erogenous zone for women, which is not directly correlated with reproduction

Now, as a person who taught sex ed, I saw teaching it as trying to A) Limit the spread of STDs and, B) Limit unplanned, teen pregnancies. Good, lofty goals that weren't always met. Now, nowhere did I view as an objective of the class the goal of helping one's partner achieve climax. Oddly enough, I doubt most parents would like that either.

3. The act actually doesn't do a thing. Note the final section:

URGES:
-1- All Nations to organize and secure some sexual education courses for all, before the age of 18-years; and
-2- All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment

It urges. It does not require. Nations could easily ignore this resolution. Some might say, well, your first argument makes it seem like arequirement. this one makes it optional, but I'd have to say to them, why not make this a daily issue? Why a UN Resolution?

Now, that is if I voted my conscience. As a Delegate though, I poll my region and vote the way my people tell me, so who knows how I will vote

These so called sex education classes seem to focus more on the teaching people how (as in how to best please your partner) to have sex and not the actual teaching how to be safe in a sexual world. This needs more thought and planning. how would one go about doing this anyway?

Dear Honorable Ambassadors, Excellencies, Ministers, Delegates.

First of all I am Proud to voice my first statement as Ambassador of the Democratic Republic of Heelderpeel, a very young nation devoted to peace, political and personal freedom and the wellfare of our people. We are aware, that wellfare can only be achieved through international cooperation, and so we extend our hand of friendship to every nation in the United Nations. Secondly I'd like to apologize for my partly bad english. Our countrie's languages are dutch and german, so please be patient with me.

Not about the resolution at hand. It is the view of my government, that a good sexual education is necessary for all species and all people. Although this Resolution is mainly for humans, my government believes it a great progress in sexual education. It is our strong belief, that sexual education prevents sexual criminality and diseases. Many men tend to rape a woman or do not know how to treat her right. f they never learn how to perform sexual acts kindly and friendly, there will be no better understanding between the sexes. Although we do accept the argument, that this bill influences national souvereignty, it is our view towards the UN, that it is our duty to influence national souvereignty. We are here to establish a world law of a kind. We need to "Urge" Nations to establish human rights, and for our government the sexual education is part of these rights.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is not necessary to fear a good social sexual education. If we treat people who talk openly about sex and satisfaction in sex as criminals, then we need not wonder about sexual cruelty and criminality. So my government will strongly support this bill, not although, but because it infringes on national souvereignty. Although we valy this souvereignty very high, we also want to see basic standards in human rights all over the world. Please support this good and progressive bill.

Mr. Chairman, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, htanks for your kind listening.

We just wonder that in some nations, for example: some people have never been told about female sexuality (which is not perfectly symetric to male sexuality) or don't really understand that sex can lead to pregnancy
and we would like every people know, because we think sex is a source of hapiness and we think to have a child is a will of 2 people loving each other

This has to be the worst reason I have ever read as a reason for writing a UN resolution.

You are ignoring the freedom of thinking for UN citizens by deciding for them what they should think about sex, what schools should teach about sex, through a UN resolution. This should be categorized as moral decency, restricting human rights, instead of the human rights category...

I voted for this resolution, I believe sex education is IMPORTANT and can save lives.

Except that it prevents my teachers from saying STDs are bad, as that is a value judgement, and that's not allowed:
All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment

Well its very obvious that apart from the serious problems in life, occasionaly someone puts out a resolution that more or less functions as morphine....so people read between the lines, question everything and anything.... :-0 :headbang:

the people of Alfghanistan have long accepted human sexuality as an important and healthy part of our lifestyle.

It amazes us that many of our Bumpkin neighbors would keep education on the subject from their people. We can only assume these nations (Since they continue to exist ) do have sex, but very bad sex.

We in Alfghanistan have seen the ravages of sexual promiscuity hiding under the blanket of conservative thought and religious ideology, and we know what it has done to the southern United States. To avoid more Kevin Federlines, to deter the Phrase "Who's my baby's daddy?", and seek a happier healthier world the Grand Duke, at the behest of his democratically elected government, on behalf of the Alfghani people, votes for the resoulution in hopes that the people of the world will become a better lay.

-His Serene Majesty,Grand Duke Alf

Hah! If anything, Kevin Federline is a lock stock and barrel product of Hollywood Demunist Commiecrat Leftism, as is his squeeze, her southern background notwithstanding.

The phrase "Who's my baby's daddy?" is most common in inner city ghettos and in the Hollywood Celebrity Bastard Baby Left, both of which are about as far from "conservative thought and religious ideology" as one can get.

Now, onto the issue:

"-1- All Nations to organize and secure some sexual education courses for all, before the age of 18-years; and"

By "all nations" it is really meant "all governments." Given the appalling failures of government programs in inner cities as it is, need we say more?

"-2- All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment"

Here is where the fecal matter hits the rotary airfoil. The issue of sexuality is chock full of value judgements, and to pretend otherwise is just fooilsh. The statement "abortion right", is in itself a value judgement.

The lack of value judgements is precisely the foul swamp from which the Kevin Federlines of the world emerged.

Of course, you can educate all citizens about biology, which is what we do now ("this is where babies come from, what happens when you start getting your period, etc."). But that is simply biology education. "Sex education" is inevitably about value judgements, one way or another.

Why would you teach children abortion rights when the main reason for Sex Ed is to stop the large number of teenage pregancies? It encourages children to do the deed while believing that no matter what happens they will be free of consequences!

This Proposal must be revised.

- Pres. Aeiis Chindalia of The People's Republic of Queso Pinguino

I don't think Sex Ed. is the right way to go, I mean wouldn't it be awkward to have "the talk" at school? I think parents should teach the children about where babies come from, abortion, etc etc. at HOME, not in a classroom. I mean I know the idea has good intentions, but I totally disagree with the total idea of it.

And it takes a shorter and shorter time for me to decide just to skip them and focus on other posts. I mean, I've heard lots of wonderfully insightful things from you before, but when you start getting "DLE" with your posts--one-liners for pages and pages--it greatly dissaudes me from reading it.

Hmm....perhaps I should start posting a summary of the various points I'm trying to make......

Regardless, the point of those is to try and respond to as many people that need to be responded to - though admittedly, I end up making the same point with about 20 different faces throughout the entire post....

Hah! If anything, Kevin Federline is a lock stock and barrel product of Hollywood Demunist Commiecrat Leftism, as is his squeeze, her southern background notwithstanding.

The phrase "Who's my baby's daddy?" is most common in inner city ghettos and in the Hollywood Celebrity Bastard Baby Left, both of which are about as far from "conservative thought and religious ideology" as one can get.

Whatever

Now, onto the issue:

"-1- All Nations to organize and secure some sexual education courses for all, before the age of 18-years; and"

By "all nations" it is really meant "all governments." Given the appalling failures of government programs in inner cities as it is, need we say more?

Hmm, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised considering your name, but you need to broaden the scope of your consideration. The US has one of the poorest education systems in the world, but just about all the educational systems around the world that are above the US are government funded

Regardless, various resolutions require that you provide a full education to all citizens that is government funded for anyone under the age of 18. This resolution recognizes that and takes it into consideration. Additionally - even if we were to assume this was not the case, then your requirement would be to provide it insofar as it must be a part of the national curriculum

"-2- All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment"

Here is where the fecal matter hits the rotary airfoil. The issue of sexuality is chock full of value judgements,

But doesn't need to be - and we want you to provide the issues of it to your students without the value arguments behind it.

and to pretend otherwise is just fooilsh.

We aren't pretending otherwise. We're stating that we should push those asides and give the facts - because sometimes, kids just NEED the facts

The statement "abortion right", is in itself a value judgement.

No. You are telling them what rights they have in regards to abortion - specifically, the ones granted by past resolutions and any ones that nations have given beyond that past resolutions. It is not trying to claim that abortion is right or wrong, just that you have that right.

[QOTE]The lack of value judgements is precisely the foul swamp from which the Kevin Federlines of the world emerged.

Of course, you can educate all citizens about biology, which is what we do now ("this is where babies come from, what happens when you start getting your period, etc."). But that is simply biology education. "Sex education" is inevitably about value judgements, one way or another.[/QUOTE]

Whatever

Mestiza agrees with the goals of the Sex Education Act. However, it should be the responsibility of each nation to take care of such matters on their own and not be enforced by a UN resolution.

When it comes to the curriculum, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree

And that's exactly why the author should never have included so much detail.

Personally, I'm contemplating delegating sexual education to parents. From our UN budget, we'll put together a UN-approved package of sexual education material which will be distributed to all parents whose children turn 14 according to our administration.

That way, the UN won't have to interfere with our curriculum. There won't be any sexual education in school anymore. It's the only way I can comply with this resolution within my own morals. I will not let some silly wannabe resolution writer dictate exactly what a nation should teach, even if I agree with the general principle. It's just plain stupid to prescribe precisely what 40.000 nations should do.

:headbang: This is ridiculous. Any sound mind knows that unless the clear message is complete abstinence til marriage, and total fidelity in marriage, and no sex outside marriage, and even then only normal sex, then such a program will do nothing to solve the world's problems in that arena.
True, we cannot force someone to follow those teachings, but that MUST be the ONLY thing taught, besides the mechanisms, puberty, &c...
The only way it will work is if the loud message is "KEEP THE SNAKE IN IT'S CAGE!!!"

Originally posted by: Forgottenlands

I note that the resolution uses urges, rather than mandates. It is trying to encourage a more robust level of sex education throughout the world. However, if a nation feels this goes against their beliefs, they will still have the right to not teach the appropriate articles that they oppose

I would also like to enquire how it encourages sex before marriage?

The first paragraph I accept, but the 'urges' section is the basis of the resolution and if it is too be ignored it kind of undermines the whole resolution, however it leaves some latitude for nations like myself.

On the question of sex before marriage, it is encouraged as it urges teaching about AIDS and STDS, birth control and abortion rights, without suggestion of absitnence implying that having sex when you like is fine as long as you're careful, which does not come up to a christian standard morality in my view. It could be argued that its a tenouous implication but there you are.

On the question of sex before marriage, it is encouraged as it urges teaching about AIDS and STDS, birth control and abortion rights, without suggestion of absitnence implying that having sex when you like is fine as long as you're careful, which does not come up to a christian standard morality in my view. It could be argued that its a tenouous implication but there you are.

I don't believe the UN government should or does run on a Christian Standard Morality. I am christian myself but of course not everyone is.

I said yes, people need sexual education.
The school most take the education before people made they home education with porno movies.

I said yes, people need sexual education.
The school most take the education before people made they home education with porno movies.

What is your proof, evidence, or explanation for thinking they way you do? It's not helpful for people who are undecided to just read, "I think we need sexual education...", that doesn't tell us anything.

I'm sure someone already said this, BUT WHY.

The last UN resolutions to come in front of the UN body have been ridiculous. I am waiting for the UN resolution that makes us all wear yellow shirts on Monday.
Not being part of the UN is starting to make sense.

I'm sure someone already said this, BUT WHY.

The last UN resolutions to come in front of the UN body have been ridiculous. I am waiting for the UN resolution that makes us all wear yellow shirts on Monday.
Not being part of the UN is starting to make sense.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that the trend of UN resolutions being ridiculous started with the first one. And the one that makes us wear yellow shirts on Monday...I pray to Mod that it would mysteriously disappear from the proposal queue before it came up for vote. And yes, not being part of the UN does make sense.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

If someone can't figure out how to masturbate on their own, they aren't going to need education on it. Children stimulate themselves all throughout their development, if someone makes it to 18 years of age and hasn't figured it out yet, they probably don't have genitals.

Sex is a wonderful thing for our people. Being instructed on it from some uncaring, UN approved textbooks is no substitute for the loving embrace of a partner.

The Free Land of CTerryland agrees with the spirit of this proposal but finds its execution flawed. Particularly the narrow-mindedness of how Sex Ed should be taught. The UN is a body of culturally diverse nations, all with different needs. In those countries where 40% of the population has AIDS, sex ed of this type is obviously highly necessary at a very early age, in those nations where the degree of sexual promiscuity is already very low due to a strong system of church and family (despite the Free Land of CTerryland's personal objection to the level of draconianism we believe this requires) they may choose to educate in different ways. However we are voting for this resolution for the following reason:

The Parliament of CTerryland has, for the last month, been engaging in the biggest house party ever. Our Parliament building is currently entirely insuitable for passing legislature as it is full of drunken MPs stumbling around trying to kiss civil servants and foreign dignatries. Even if the party were to end now the clean-up operation would take months. Therefore we are for this so we can implement a sex ed program without having to draw up the plans and the what not. All that will be required is telling each MP that if they cross the box marked 'aye' in the Parliamentary Polling Booths they will receive a free bottle of Vodka.

Democracy! It works!

Ickiness doesn't reduce curiosity. It just increases nervousness when the time comes.

[The Kawaiian deputy UN nuncio chuckles and turns to one of his colleagues, saying, "We were wrong about these guys. They aren't sex-crazed; they just want to take all the fun out of it."]

The delegation from the Allied States of Socratic Self-Doubt rejects the proposal.

We congratulate the UN on realizing to some small extent the value of self-doubt, which finds expression in the modest ambitions of this proposal. We scorn the proposal's international triviality.

Nonetheless, the Allied States cannot support a platform which urges the introduction in the various nations of a federal program to disseminate propaganda via federal channels. To urge all nations to adopt a common sex-education program is to presume the objective superiority of a particular sex-education program. It is up to local school-districts and various sub-national educational unions to decide from themselves how and whether to teach sex. It is culturally insensitive and downright presumptuous to believe one program suitable for all people.

Though the UN may have checked its ambition, it has yet to check its conceit.

Ok, tell me why this is a consern of the UN? The government isn't supposed to tell peole how to run there lives. PARENTS need to talk to there kids about sex not teachers and curiculums. Would you like it if I told you that you had to wear Fruit of the Loom underwhear for the rest of your life? I don't think so! Therefore I am voting against this statement.

Sapientia Regit

New Communist:

-do you know the different stages of a baby's (pre-birth) developement?
-do you know how these different stages effect the mother?
-do you know all possible forms of medical assistance are available for pregnant mothers?
-do you know what one shouldn't do when she's pregnant?
-do you know what the signs are that you might be pregnant?
-do you know possible side effects that women may experience during their menstral cycle (aside from PMS)

Obviously, these are fairly much related to women's issues, but the fact of the matter is let's say you're a parent. How many of these answers can you give to your teenage daughter? Unfortunately, I don't have a similar list sitting at the top of my head regarding men.

Anyways - that is only one reason why states should do this. Another is because many families fail to educate their children at any level, period - my own included. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if my gf would also be included.


This is irrelevant. I said nothing about NOT having information readily available to people, I just said that Sexual education isn’t something I personally feel should be dictated by a government... for ANY reason.

That’s exactly right, though I adhere to most Communist style viewpoints there are certain ones that I’m against. One of those being the government’s ability to invade personal family rights. Teaching children about the "birds & the bees" doesn’t belong snickered about in the classroom. It belongs in the privacy of the home where the father and the mother (or parental guardian) know the CHILD BEST, and can react accordingly. For you to give government the "duty" of having to educate your children on sex is completely unnatural and something I expect of lazy Capitalist dictators.

I never NOT once ever claimed that people should be ignorant of what can happen behind closed doors and if the parents feel to "awkward" to talk about sex maybe they shouldn’t of had the child to begin with. It is their right...nay their DUTY as human beings to pass along knowledge to their children and if done correctly like his has for the last "millennia" than I think people will figure it out just fine.

I just feel a bit appalled by the ideal of teaching an 8 year old how to put on a condom in order to save "lives". Education is not always the answer. Sometimes (in the words of you religious nut bags out there) it can be the "Tree of Eden". Teaching a child about sex will raise their curiosity on the subject and perhaps even cause a steady increase in the amount of "sexual" related accidents each year. (meaning abortions/std's/misplacement) I also sure as hell don’t believe that we should be teaching children all aspects of the sexual spectrum either. Gay sex and gay rights should NOT be taught to any child under any circumstance. I’m surprised more "Christians" and "God fearing folk" see no fault in this. For once we share the same point of view.

I feel that any education of same sex situations should not be taught by anyone except the parents or under parental supervision. Too many times have I heard that the family has "turned their back" on their child because of his/her choice in of a sexual partner. While this is sad indeed it also lays format to the question of why did this happen? Is it because the families hate their child? no. Is it because the family doesn’t understand and know how to deal with their child’s choice of sexuality? BINGO!!! So instead of having the family work through their problems with the help of therapy and council, you’d rather have people blame the government for not telling them about being gay?!!? WTF kind of mentality is this?

Though it says "URGE" on the policy, it still nothing more than an advertising agent since it will be the governments "job" to adhere to these laws. The "GOVERNMENT". Not the people. Not the families who love their children. Or themselves. But the government.

I am against this policy for a variety of reasons and feel that most people do not understand what is being placed in front of them because of the wonderfully manipulative wording that was done by Love and esterel. Though many of you seem to not understand what the "underline" is, you however will be sorry indeed if and "when" this garbage passes.

School is the best place for children to be given the facts about sex and sexuality. In that environment they can be given the straight facts. Church and home are the worst. I'll give you a couple of examples from real life...

Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html). It seems the church is more worried about its members sleeping around than they are about their lives. How can a church be trusted to give facts on something this important.

and the parents giving this information. Most parents are incapable or just plain unwilling to give all information the children will need to protect themselves and others. When I hit puberty, my mother gave me a pack of kotex and said "boys will start getting interested in you now, don't do it". Problem was she never told me what "it" was. My father never spoke to me on this subject. I found the information on my own and most of what I was told as a teen by school friends ect was myths.

This resolution is not forcing your nations to teach sex education. Its urging you to be open to the idea and give it, and the health and safety of your nations kids, some consideration.

That’s exactly right, though I adhere to most Communist style viewpoints there are certain ones that I’m against. One of those being the government’s ability to invade personal family rights. Teaching children about the "birds & the bees" doesn’t belong snickered about in the classroom. It belongs in the privacy of the home where the father and the mother (or parental guardian) know the CHILD BEST, and can react accordingly. For you to give government the "duty" of having to educate your children on sex is completely unnatural and something I expect of lazy Capitalist dictators.

Quite the contrary, it has always been on the liberal agenda to go the extra mile to increase awareness and education, regardless of cost. This bill isn't directed at the majority of parents, it's directed at a minority of parents. Namely, those who do not provide Sex Ed.


I never NOT once ever claimed that people should be ignorant of what can happen behind closed doors and if the parents feel to "awkward" to talk about sex maybe they shouldn’t of had the child to begin with. It is their right...nay their DUTY as human beings to pass along knowledge to their children and if done correctly like his has for the last "millennia" than I think people will figure it out just fine.

Assuming you are exaggerating (the last thousand years have been a period of improving existing systems of increasing education, most of which were terrible), in countless countries, the status quo is NOT "just fine." The are governments, institutions (religous and otherwise), communities, and parents that oppose giving this very nessacary information to thier children. In more progressive societies, there are also many otherwise good parents that have trouble in this area, and is it not one of the purposes of government to help parents raise thier children?


I just feel a bit appalled by the ideal of teaching an 8 year old how to put on a condom in order to save "lives". Education is not always the answer. Sometimes (in the words of you religious nut bags out there) it can be the "Tree of Eden". Teaching a child about sex will raise their curiosity on the subject and perhaps even cause a steady increase in the amount of "sexual" related accidents each year. (meaning abortions/std's/misplacement) I also sure as hell don’t believe that we should be teaching children all aspects of the sexual spectrum either. Gay sex and gay rights should NOT be taught to any child under any circumstance. I’m surprised more "Christians" and "God fearing folk" see no fault in this. For once we share the same point of view.


Firstly, there is nothing in the proposal that says 8 year olds have to know how to use condoms, this is distorting the issue. Secondly, I do not believe that sexual education will increase promiscuity. People have sex regardless of whether or not they know what they're doing. Instead, I think it is common sense that someone who is aware of the risks of STDs and pregnancies are either going to have safe sex or less sex. Even if you are right, it is preferable to have four partners having safe sex than a couple that doesn't. Thirdly, children should at least be aware of homosexuality, to help fight the notion that it is "unnatural" and "evil." Why should heterosexual couples be educated about the consequences of thier sex, and homosexuals have to figure it out for themselves? This is not something a rational government should shirk away from addressing due to religous beliefs.


I feel that any education of same sex situations should not be taught by anyone except the parents or under parental supervision. Too many times have I heard that the family has "turned their back" on their child because of his/her choice in of a sexual partner. While this is sad indeed it also lays format to the question of why did this happen? Is it because the families hate their child? no. Is it because the family doesn’t understand and know how to deal with their child’s choice of sexuality? BINGO!!! So instead of having the family work through their problems with the help of therapy and council, you’d rather have people blame the government for not telling them about being gay?!!? WTF kind of mentality is this?


Families that do this rarely think of themselves as lacking an understanding of thier child's sexuality and certainly arn't going to seek council or go to therapy. This in and of itself reveals that there are parents where not properly taught about homosexuality, and shows how ignorance gets inherited. Where parents fail, the government MUST step in. That is my menality, and while I'm sure there are a few conservatives that would argue it is insane on some level, those who are against Sex Ed. do not have a monopoly on family values. Indeed, educating the parents of tomorrow about sex is the first step toward reducing the need for sexual education.


Though it says "URGE" on the policy, it still nothing more than an advertising agent since it will be the governments "job" to adhere to these laws. The "GOVERNMENT". Not the people. Not the families who love their children. Or themselves. But the government.


Exactly. I hate to sound like a broken record, but ... Governments must have these courses so that when families (even the ones who love thier children very deeply sometimes) don't provide this information, we do.


I am against this policy for a variety of reasons and feel that most people do not understand what is being placed in front of them because of the wonderfully manipulative wording that was done by Love and esterel. Though many of you seem to not understand what the "underline" is, you however will be sorry indeed if and "when" this garbage passes.

The proposal is hardly what I would describe as "manipulative." It is mild legislation that gives governments plenty of room as to how they want to comply with a bill designed to fill a basic need. If you are going to call this bill manipulative, deceiving garbage, then the burden is upon you to provide proof for these accusations, which you have failed to do.

Why should I vote for this....i mean isnt it up to the parents to be mature enough or rather responsible enough to talk to their children about sex. Why are we wasting government funding on sex education...its a parents freedom to choose whether or not they want to teach their children about sex.

You might think your helping but i mean your taking away personal freedoms...and what if a child needs to take a certain class in order to get into their college or pass highschool and now they are forced to take a sex education class...

and what about religions...

maybe their will be a mandatory drivers education class now...even when some kids arent going to drive...its stupid and a waste of money.

I think the UN should let people do their own thing.

I maintain that, regardless of any benifits, precived or real, the fact is that this violates the right of all member nations to think for themselves and make their own decisions. If you tried to run this through the REAL UN, it would never get through...

If you tried to run this through the REAL UN, it would never get through...Luckily, this isn't the real UN.

isnt it up to the parents to be mature enough or rather responsible enough to talk to their children about sex. Why are we wasting government funding on sex education...its a parents freedom to choose whether or not they want to teach their children about sex.
Haven't you heard of lazy and incompetent parents that don't teach their children about this? That's why I'm voting yes, despite the fact most nations probably do teach Sex Education in their public schools already.

The citizens of Chaos Punx have voted FOR this UN Resolution. As the people see it, children younger and younger as the years go by seem to be involved in some form of sexuality; be it intercourse or the like. We must educate them at about the equivalent of the United States' fifth or six grade level. Proper education will help the UN's nations greatly; and will decrease the number of childhood pregnancies, according to Chaos Punx statistics at the Department of National Sexuality.

The big question is, should it be mandated? Of course not. We live in an era of democracy, but I think this issue should be HIGHLY encouraged to be taken upon in the nations of the UN. ;)

Regards,
Warchief Monoxide of the Chaos Punx Nation

After meeting with Cabinet, I am directing our UN Ambassador to register a profound reservation regarding this resolution. Before I go into too great a depth, let me first praise the Foreign Secretary for keeping all of Cabinet apprised of the developments on this resolution. Now then, Cabinet and I are concerned that a rather weak resolution is being used as a "With us or Against us" proposition. I seem to recall seeing one nation express that very notion. That really, in our opinion, is one of the poorest uses of a resolution. We could easily have a resolution that is entitled "END RACISM" and the text says "RESOLVED: The UN mandates that racism be ended by terminating the human population of the World." Now, do we really want to vote yes on such a resolution simply to show we are opposed to racism?

While the Holy and Serene Republic of Lloegr-Cymru believes most vehemently in sex education, this resolution may not be the best means of promoting its spread to all countries. The nation applauds the principle sponsor(s) for trying to tackle this thorny issue, but it would be far better, in our view, to submit a better written, more comprehensive, and less political resolution for the consideration of this body. In this way, we can all confidently support it and not have to worry about voting for the resolution simply to show our support for the idea.

Quite the contrary, it has always been on the liberal agenda to go the extra mile to increase awareness and education, regardless of cost. This bill isn't directed at the majority of parents, it's directed at a minority of parents. Namely, those who do not provide Sex Ed.

This policy applies to "ALL" nations that adhere to UN rules and legislation, not a small minority of back-water hicks. This is directed as a judgment to "ALL" governments to utilize this policy amongst their own people and regulate it to the full potential. So no... think again.


Assuming you are exaggerating (the last thousand years have been a period of improving existing systems of increasing education, most of which were terrible), in countless countries, the status quo is NOT "just fine." The are governments, institutions (religous and otherwise), communities, and parents that oppose giving this very nessacary information to thier children. In more progressive societies, there are also many otherwise good parents that have trouble in this area, and is it not one of the purposes of government to help parents raise thier children?

Yes I did exaggerate the amount of time since human population began to grow. I was trying to emphasize a point by using a sarcastic tone. I apologize if you had to think about that.
I would like to find out more where you get your "resource" of information from. No where have I read about people/organizations/church that is against a healthy and "educated" knowledge of sexual information. I think that you made this up in your own mind, thus to confuse people. However in the sense of the Church they are very "open" to their stand against same sexuality, as well as opposed to "pre-marital" sex which this policy would publicize. There are also people whom I feel (in my own opinion) would be very distraught by the idea of "little Jimmy" coming home one day out of the blue and forcing their parents to answer questions about sex/same-sex/STD's et cetera, at a time when they do not feel its appropriate to give their child this wisdom. Why does it necessarily become the opinion of the government "when" a child should learn about his/her own sexuality and issues that relate? Answer: it isn’t. It isn’t the government who regulates how quickly a child’s mind matures. Some 8 year olds have an almost equal maturity as some 16 year olds, and thus it would be something that "only" a parent could be dissenting of. Only a parent would know of when a child was ready for the "birds and the bees" talk.

And once again, though "good-parents" have trouble discussing sex with their children, does that mean as "mature" parental figures they should just rather choose to ditch their children to the discretion of the government?
HAHA!!! I think not.


Firstly, there is nothing in the proposal that says 8 year olds have to know how to use condoms, this is distorting the issue. Secondly, I do not believe that sexual education will increase promiscuity. People have sex regardless of whether or not they know what they're doing. Instead, I think it is common sense that someone who is aware of the risks of STDs and pregnancies are either going to have safe sex or less sex. Even if you are right, it is preferable to have four partners having safe sex than a couple that doesn't. Thirdly, children should at least be aware of homosexuality, to help fight the notion that it is "unnatural" and "evil." Why should heterosexual couples be educated about the consequences of thier sex, and homosexuals have to figure it out for themselves? This is not something a rational government should shirk away from addressing due to religous beliefs.

8 years of age is when the child begins to securely understand the nature of his/her own body. It is the age when a child recognizes the changes their body has begun to go through, though not at the extent of adolescents. However this number doesn’t respectively reflect “all” children it is a base age by statistic, hence something a government would keep in mind when attempting to educate children about sex.

Common sense is an assumption. And we all know what an assumption means right?

It is the rights and “duty” of the parents to educate their children hopefully to some point before they begin to actively have intercourse relations. It would be the families’ discretion and not that of the government. As for you blatantly twisting my words so it seems that I’m just tossing homosexuals to the wolves of life, I am appalled. I have never even applied that homosexuals should “fend” for themselves. I feel it just should not be the governments discern for how and when they should educate children from any and all aspects.

However in United Nations many governments and regions are based on a religious control of some sort. Go see for yourself. See how many nations use or endorse religion. I’m sure you would find the results fascinating, and please while your at it make sure you call each and every one of them “irrational” because they feel homosexuality is wrong. I’m sure you’ll make “LOTS” of allies.



Families that do this rarely think of themselves as lacking an understanding of thier child's sexuality and certainly arn't going to seek council or go to therapy. This in and of itself reveals that there are parents where not properly taught about homosexuality, and shows how ignorance gets inherited. Where parents fail, the government MUST step in. That is my menality, and while I'm sure there are a few conservatives that would argue it is insane on some level, those who are against Sex Ed. do not have a monopoly on family values. Indeed, educating the parents of tomorrow about sex is the first step toward reducing the need for sexual education.

I feel sorry for your people. The fact that you have so little faith in them to actually care enough about themselves and their own children that they "wouldn’t" possibly seek therapy or professional help in order to save their own families. For shame.

Families grow together from bonding experiences as well as from "learning" experiences. If a family truly cares about its own well-being it will go to any length to help ease the tenseness of the situation before (as you would put it) letting the government STEP in.

You are right about the education of "parents" I feel that is where the line should start. Not the children. The world is forcing them to grow up so fast as it is, they don’t have much time left to be children. Why would you go and purposely give the government the gun against family value and let them shoot the children’s innocence away with talk of sexual education? If this proposal was re-worded into "MANDATORY SEXUAL EDUCATION", but not directing it towards children you would have my support 110%. But this bill isn’t about education in itself. It’s about teaching sexual education to children.

However let me also bring about another point of view. The idea of human "biology" isn’t wrong, and I feel that children should know how their "bodies" work and perform. The idea of what the purpose of their genitalia isn’t what I’m against. It’s the idea of teaching children the correct way to have sex (I did have sex ed classes and they did try to teach us the difference between missionary and doggie etc etc.) and how they go about contracting an STD. I also have a problem with children being educated about homosexuality at an age where the "government" defines is correct? Because obviously the "majority" of the parents must be complete idiots and have no intention of ever teaching their own children anything about life...well at least in "your" type of country.


Exactly. I hate to sound like a broken record, but ... Governments must have these courses so that when families (even the ones who love thier children very deeply sometimes) don't provide this information, we do.

Correct. For families which include "consenting and mature" adults to be present. Not a child in a classroom with 30-40 other children dropping their faces in horror or making shrew comments on the lessons taught.

Once again...not to sound like a broken record... I’m not saying we shouldn’t educate people, I’m saying we shouldn’t leave it in the cold hands of the government to teach our kids.


The proposal is hardly what I would describe as "manipulative." It is mild legislation that gives governments plenty of room as to how they want to comply with a bill designed to fill a basic need. If you are going to call this bill manipulative, deceiving garbage, then the burden is upon you to provide proof for these accusations, which you have failed to do.

urge (ûrj) (dictionary.com)
v. urged, urg•ing, urg•es

# To force or drive forward or onward; impel.
# To entreat earnestly and often repeatedly; exhort.
# To exert an impelling force; push vigorously.
# To present a forceful argument, claim, or case.

Maybe you need to look up a few words in this policy before telling me what is and isn’t correct. This policy "URGES" the government to take action of this policy. Meaning it’s basically a nicer way of saying it "impels" us to follow the rules of this policy. Not exactly a very “optional” style of choice is it? Because slang has educated you differently on the word perhaps you should read into it more carefully before imposing "to me" your viewpoint about it.

As for this bill being manipulative garbage? You’re right... I could have come up with far more emotional words to describe how I feel about it and about the people who would support such a thing, but I did not because I felt the need to "curb" those emotions. This bill fills no need other than to give lazy people who don’t deserve the right to have a children another way to make their kids lives, someone else’s problem.

As for failing to prove my point? I don’t see how. Everything you’ve said is full of holes and doesn’t hold an ounce of water. I choose to bring you truth instead of dictator style manipulations. Also make sure you update MS-Word... I dont think yours is working properly.

when you urge someone to do something, that someone does have the option to ignore it.

Simple as that.

I voted against since i totally disagree with teaching children under the age of 18 about Homosexuality.

I voted against since i totally disagree with teaching children under the age of 18 about Homosexuality.
What if a child under 18 is homosexual? How are they to access resources on their sexuality, how are they to find their identity?

The cornerstone of the UN is to act as a democratic, unified voice in addressing issues of ignorance, exploitation, poverty, violence, and self-interested nationalist rouguery. At no point shall any member nation of the UN be expected to stand and let ignorance be bliss, no matter what the theological and/or philosophical standpoint of any other nation is. It is known and scientifically documented the adverse physiological and psychological effects of sexual repression and ignorance.
The People of the Community of Bienopolis vote a resounding "Yes" to this resolution in the hopes that, through the democratic might of the collective NationStates, other nations have their peoples educated and thereby liberated from what has proven to be a misguided and destructive repression of their natural urges and humanity.
Thus be the end of bodily enslavement.

May the orangutang rock the casbah.

Comrade B. Sleazy
Head Axe Grinder
The Community of Bienopolis

The cornerstone of the UN is to act as a democratic, unified voice in addressing issues of ignorance, exploitation, poverty, violence, and self-interested nationalist rouguery. At no point shall any member nation of the UN be expected to stand and let ignorance be bliss, no matter what the theological and/or philosophical standpoint of any other nation is. It is known and scientifically documented the adverse physiological and psychological effects of sexual repression and ignorance.
The People of the Community of Bienopolis vote a resounding "Yes" to this resolution in the hopes that, through the democratic might of the collective NationStates, other nations have their peoples educated and thereby liberated from what has proven to be a misguided and destructive repression of their natural urges and humanity.
Thus be the end of bodily enslavement.

May the orangutang rock the casbah.

Comrade B. Sleazy
Head Axe Grinder
The Community of Bienopolis

Ok. Fine. Than someone answer me this then.

Why does the government have to be involved with teaching our children the delicate nature of sex, and everything related?
Why cant the government choose to instead educate adults/families/parental guardians (families have consenting adults) about sex, and let those adults/families/parental guardians decide when they feel their child is "ready" for the knowledge?
The policy doesnt respect individual status and therefore can cause quite alot of confusion for those children who aren't ready to learn about sex, regardless of what "government statistics" say when they are.

Just curious since you are a fellow Comrade after all.

This is the first resolution my country has had a chance to vote on.

We feel that, though some topics listed in this resolution is questionable, the good outweighs the bad.

Central Americas votes in favor of the resolution.

President John Damen
Sunday, August 21, 2005
6:27am CMT

Most parents are incapable or just plain unwilling to give all information the children will need to protect themselves and others. When I hit puberty, my mother gave me a pack of kotex and said "boys will start getting interested in you now, don't do it". Problem was she never told me what "it" was. My father never spoke to me on this subject. I found the information on my own and most of what I was told as a teen by school friends ect was myths.

The people of Groot Gouda have long been taught about sex in school. However, now that the UN is trying to dictate curriculum, we are forced to remove sex education from the curriculum. Our biology teachers are threatening with a strike, and we can't ignore UN resolutions. That's why we're moving the responsibility for sex education to the parents, who have had sex education at school and are therefor more capable of talking about it than the parents of several generations ago. We don't see that as a problem.

This resolution is not forcing your nations to teach sex education. Its urging you to be open to the idea and give it, and the health and safety of your nations kids, some consideration.

It's not urging to be open about it, it put down several rules about what sex education should contain and how it should be taught. Most people vote for because they only regard UN resolutions as a national issue, and treat voting accordingly. This resolution would have been excellent as a daily issue, but in this wording doesn't work as a resolution. And for the purpose of UN resolutions, urging is about as much forcing as requiring or mandating. Otherwise a resolution would have no effect at all, and that's not how the UN works here.

Greetings from Parnasium,

The Sex Education Act is, how shall I say this, a direct infringement into the internal affairs of independent NationStates and their citizens.

Sex education is not the responsibility of the government, it is the responsibility of the parents. Parents have the right to determine what is appropriate in the education of their children based upon their individual moral and religious views, or lack of them. The job of the government is to teach Anatomy and Physiology, not moral issues.

Parnasium must vote no!!! This is simply bad legislation.

Ok. Fine. Than someone answer me this then.

In response to your questions...

Why does the government have to be involved with teaching our children the delicate nature of sex, and everything related?

1. Because often parents are too embarassed to teach their own children, and often dont' have all of the facts. Young adults must have this information in order to make safe decisions. STDs are becoming much more of a threat.

Why cant the government choose to instead educate adults/families/parental guardians (families have consenting adults) about sex, and let those adults/families/parental guardians decide when they feel their child is "ready" for the knowledge?

2. I must answer your second question with questions of my own. How is teaching the parents any different from teaching their children? Why didn't THEIR parents teach them properly? How can you enforce this education on people who have left school? You still can't ensure that these parents will tell their children what they have learned. Again, they may be too embarassed. As much as I would like to be as optimistic about my population as you seem to be about yours, I still cannot believe that all of the parents of my nation are as mature and frank about sex education as you appear to think they are and be counted upon to seek therapy when need be. And what happens if a parent never decides that their child is ready to hear this information? There are plenty of annoyingly doting parents who want to keep their "baby" forever and can't see that they are rapidly growing up. These children often make bad decisions about sex because they don't know all of the facts, their parents never discussed it with them.

The policy doesnt respect individual status and therefore can cause quite alot of confusion for those children who aren't ready to learn about sex, regardless of what "government statistics" say when they are.

3. I don't believe this piece of legislation is trying to take away rights from the individual, I think it is trying to educate young adults, teaching them all of the facts so they can draw their own conclusions. As nice as it would be for parents to dicuss everything openly with their children, we can't rely upon them to do exaclty that. Kids still need to form their own opinions on the matter, whether they agree with their parents or not.

Another thing I would like to emphasize is that we would not be educating eight year olds about this, they would be of high-school age, as a supplement to whatever their parents HAVE taught them by then, either supporting the information they have recieved or dispelling myths they have heard about the subject.

Homosexuality is another matter altogether, but I don't think that people should just close their eyes and march on blindly, pretending that it doesn't exist.

In response to how you described your own experiences in a sex ed. class, I feel very sorry for you and can only assume that you did not have a very good teacher. All of the sex ed classes I had were very informative. We learned about STDs, safe sex, and stages of pregnancy. There was nothing "arousing" about it, it did not increase my sexual curiosity, and my class felt free to ask any questions we may have had. I think that this bill would ensure that no teachers such as yours would be teaching our nations' young adults.

I think that Children should be taught about sex at different times in their life in more detail as time goes on, for example:

Year 6 (9-10 years old): Learn the basics of reproduction, possibly about creatures other than humans (i.e. Fish, Birds, Iranian Tree Squids) just so they know that babies aren't made by god and they aren't carried to the hospital by a stork.

Year 9 (13-14): Learn about sex in more detail, things like parts of the body, sperm etc. Also they should learn the dangers of Sex like STDs, pregnancies and Family effect and how to prevent such things happening (contraception)

Year 11 (15-16): Learn in even more detail, things such as orgasms, homosexuality and bisexuality, how to put on a condom, how to give oral pleasure to your partner etc. Also if it is legal at this age, show videos and/or diagrams displaying related topics, such as breasts, vaginas and penises *giggle*

Lower and Upper Sixth Form (16-18): Possibly just re-capping the basics learned the years before and (if in a biology lesson) learning in depth about the real science of sex.

That is how I'd have it in Marijuanastein

Ok. Fine. Than someone answer me this then.

Why does the government have to be involved with teaching our children the delicate nature of sex, and everything related?
Why cant the government choose to instead educate adults/families/parental guardians (families have consenting adults) about sex, and let those adults/families/parental guardians decide when they feel their child is "ready" for the knowledge?
The policy doesnt respect individual status and therefore can cause quite alot of confusion for those children who aren't ready to learn about sex, regardless of what "government statistics" say when they are.

Just curious since you are a fellow Comrade after all.

1) Parents are not held to a standard for teaching practices, etc. They are not monitored, they are not graded for their quality, and there is no way to prove that they are or aren't teaching children correctly, appropriately and at the complete level. This is, however, not true of teachers
2) You make an assumption that all parents will actually teach their children this information.....

My nation grows tired of all the sexually oriented bills being brought up for vote in the UN.
Let us get on with real business and leave these private matters to the people.

Think with an open mind and realize that though I may sound a bit harsh at times, it is only because of how passionate I am against this policy. I feel its something that Nazi’s and dictators would attempt to uphold, not the mass of people that are doing so. Also for the record, I respect your nation and your ideas, though as you will see how devout I am against your “opinion” on this matter. Now, let’s get on with it then shall we?

In response to your questions...
1. Because often parents are too embarrassed to teach their own children, and often don’t' have all of the facts. Young adults must have this information in order to make safe decisions. STDs are becoming much more of a threat.

Because a few people get a little red-faced is the reason that a whole country should put their children under government control?!!! WHAT?!! No offense but you said that before to my last post and I couldn’t help but snicker. The fact that you’ve attempted to use that as a legitimate argument against me 2 times now is absurd. You know what I say to the parents of your country who are afraid of teaching their kids the right and wrong’s about sex and sexual education? “GET THE expletive removed OVER YOURSELVES.”
Embarrassment is a sad reason to have your personal rights dictated to you on any level.

The STD concern is simply better understood by adults and not children thus making them better suited to educate their children about it when those parents and adults feel it has reached an appropriate time to do so. From my understanding of this policy (I do understand it from both sides, I choose to read deeper than most into it) it is for the reason of comfort and safety that a majority of people want this to pass. Well why can’t those issues be better discussed with a mature adult as opposed to an immature child? Reason: They can. Those people could be taught correct ways to bring this up to a child and thus making it easier to “ease” their embarrassment. If a couple of parents are to damn chicken-shit to talk to their own kids, than maybe your country “deserves” this policy.


2. I must answer your second question with questions of my own. How is teaching the parents any different from teaching their children?

Parents are consenting adults (who apparently know a little about sex already… child hint hint) who also would happen to love their child, and would want the best for him/her. They would also be more suited to talking to their child because well lets face it, the government doesn’t care about every little “Tom Dick & Harry” that comes through those classroom doors. Where on the other hand a parent can also deem when a child is ready for such information, and the government would “tell” you when the child is ready…


Why didn't THEIR parents teach them properly?

The flaws of the parents and the grandparents et cetera are of little concern to me, since this about the children of now. I am not agreeing to further proposed misinformation to people. I just don’t feel that it’s the government’s decision to dictate sex to our children. My proposition would have been someone different as I’m hoping this goes into repeal, and gets re-worded so that the parents and adults are responsible and not the children.


How can you enforce this education on people who have left school?

I don’t know. Apparently I could “URGE” them to do so. Maybe it could be something that when a child hits a certain grade/age parents are “URGED” to take a special class. It seems like a more natural and efficient choice to me, especially considering the maturity factor and the developed intellect amongst adults in comparison to children and all…


You still can't ensure that these parents will tell their children what they have learned. Again, they may be too embarassed. As much as I would like to be as optimistic about my population as you seem to be about yours, I still cannot believe that all of the parents of my nation are as mature and frank about sex education as you appear to think they are and be counted upon to seek therapy when need be. And what happens if a parent never decides that their child is ready to hear this information? There are plenty of annoyingly doting parents who want to keep their "baby" forever and can't see that they are rapidly growing up. These children often make bad decisions about sex because they don't know all of the facts, their parents never discussed it with them.
You’re somewhat correct. Let me start by saying yes I agree that idiocy on any level about this is wrong and isn’t necessary when alternatives are about. Fine. But since this policy is all about “URGING” education, I imagine that’s all we can do.

Parents aren’t expected to “have” all the answers about sex, especially not without education. But perhaps in those government classes that I feel would be better suited for adults, the government can also teach adults ways of talking to their children about the subject and not being so embarrassed about the whole ordeal. However I understand that you feel therapy seems a bit of an “overwhelming” measure to take when it comes to dealing with this. Well if parents are taught in classes on how to break it to their children and still cannot do it, they should be “URGED” to seek a “qualified” family therapist that can help mediate and even help the parents explain about sex education to their children. I feel that if the parents truly love their children this would be a small measure to take as opposed to a large task.

I would personally feel safer in knowing that my children aren’t trying to interpret “sex” in their own minds with a classroom full of other children being taught by some substitute teacher who makes her nickel off of shoving sex ed down these kids throats because it’s “their” job. This is something better suited for the loving touch of a mother and father’s wisdom and “education” rather than a cold government appointed employee.

But really Strickler, stop using that “E” word.


3. I don't believe this piece of legislation is trying to take away rights from the individual, I think it is trying to educate young adults, teaching them all of the facts so they can draw their own conclusions. As nice as it would be for parents to dicuss everything openly with their children, we can't rely upon them to do exaclty that. Kids still need to form their own opinions on the matter, whether they agree with their parents or not.
How about we skip the middle man of young adults, and just focus on adults? Why does it revolve around what the government is going to teach your kids? Parents have the right and duty to talk to their ids about the matters of life. This is one of those matters. If they choose not to do it for their children, that is why a government class would be “URGED” for them on how to do so. Kids “will” form their own opinions on the subject no matter what. We know this. But rather who would you respect more? A parent who loves and respects the child and “hopefully” vice versa talking with them about serious “adult” matters, or government appointed dictator (teacher) Mary J. Rottencrotch, divorced, childless, barren, and bitter, 87 year old-teacher, who seems more worthy of appointing her own funeral than trying to get respect But hey, in a “perfect” world we could have the kids idols talk to them about sex, but unfortunately Pink Floyd and the Dallas Cowboys were too busy picking up hookers, dropping acid, and snorting lines of coke to be bothered. So I’ll settle with the love and compassion and respect that a child has for their parental figures instead.


Another thing I would like to emphasize is that we would not be educating eight year olds about this, they would be of high-school age, as a supplement to whatever their parents HAVE taught them by then, either supporting the information they have recieved or dispelling myths they have heard about the subject.
Well that’s contradictory to what this policy wants your nation to do. If you do feel this way retract your vote and cast it into the “no” ballot for a repeal, this policy is “URGED” to all children to have full knowledge by the age of 18, not 13-18. In that sense 8 year-olds are victim to the full horrors of this as that of a 17 year-old.

In the sense of dispelling myths and reaffirming truths, there is no reason that education should not readily be available and “URGED” upon adults when their child reaches a certain age/grade. Basically unless you live in a nation that does not have educational funding or schools all together, this is the “only” educated choice to take. However to those po-dunk nations this policy doesn’t mean much to them one way or another.


Homosexuality is another matter altogether, but I don't think that people should just close their eyes and march on blindly, pretending that it doesn't exist.

I have NEVER said or implied such a thing. I just do not feel that the government has enough sensitivity to go about teaching a child everything homosexuality entails. Please don’t imply such false accusations against me or I will cease being cordial.



In response to how you described your own experiences in a sex ed. class, I feel very sorry for you and can only assume that you did not have a very good teacher. All of the sex ed classes I had were very informative. We learned about STDs, safe sex, and stages of pregnancy. There was nothing "arousing" about it, it did not increase my sexual curiosity, and my class felt free to ask any questions we may have had. I think that this bill would ensure that no teachers such as yours would be teaching our nations' young adults.

Since this is the personal part of the post, than I too will get a bit more “personal”. There was more to my sexual education than a couple of sexual positions. At the time I posted that part I felt it was something I’d be wise not to get into, however you leave me little choice as it seems I am now defending what has happened in my own life against your “judgment” of me. I learned about STD’s and vaginal discharge, PMS, abortion, et cetera the list goes on. It was “NOT” arousing to me in the slightest, quite the opposite really. It was a frightening mechanical group of figures and numbers and priority “red” warnings that must be abided by at all times. I mean for Pete’s sake, if I were to follow the government’s instructions and implications, I gathered that my pecker would fall off within 10 feet of an overly stimulated woman due to disease et cetera. I know for a fact that a father’s word could have led me better than flashing me all sorts of warnings on a TV screen about all the dangers of having sex. I‘d like to think that I’m special… but I'm not. I know millions of kids have this very similar reaction and by this policy being passed you’re ensuring the “unhealthiness” of hundreds of millions.

It’s a nice thought to have a “good” teacher one with preferable amounts of experience and possibly children too, but that isn’t in this policy either. It doesn’t talk about a specially designed system with specially educated people fit for the position. It also doesn’t say that the government isn’t inclined to put their “OWN” personal viewpoint twists on the matter. It’s a lot of what-ifs and how bout’s but it doesn’t resolve anything. In fact this piece of garbage only constitutes more problems in the frailty of our children’s minds as it is.

I challenge you Strickler as a fellow nation and as a human being to step back from this policy and attempt to read between the lines. This policy is VERY wrong and in desperate need of an appeal. You seem to educated to be convinced that their lies are the way of our children’s future, and I feel that you can at least come to terms with the idea that this policy is in desperate need of re-wording and re-thinking.


1) Parents are not held to a standard for teaching practices, etc. They are not monitored, they are not graded for their quality, and there is no way to prove that they are or aren't teaching children correctly, appropriately and at the complete level. This is, however, not true of teachers

No you are right, they are not considered to be teachers by the laws that dictate what the standard of a classroom teacher is, however within that statement you’re entirely wrong. Parents are the very first teachers a child has. Parents also have the compassion and can be “taught” the appropriate methods to discuss such things with their own children. It isn’t hard to imagine, especially if the parents love their children. Government dictation is not the answer to education. How about a little love? You know something the big governments don’t understand on an individual level because they don’t have the time.


2) You make an assumption that all parents will actually teach their children this information.....

Well no. With the repeal the governments would “URGE” the parents to go to classes and become more educated about sexual education and how to talk about it with ease to their own children. I mean unless your people are nothing but “human-resources”.

Our children and the futures of our people deserve better than this. Don’t leave their futures in the hands of uncertainty.

sexual education is very important in teaching young children, who are now more interested in sex then ever, about the basics and the consequences of teen sex. more and more teens are contracting std's and aids, using this as an education source, may cut down the hiv population and help us overcome an epidemic.

bdon is FOR sexual education.

also, if you're saying other countries sexual education doesnt affect you, well it does. say someone from another country comes in and spreads and std.. i think it would affect you then. wouldnt it?

No you are right, they are not considered to be teachers by the laws that dictate what the standard of a classroom teacher is, however within that statement you’re entirely wrong. Parents are the very first teachers a child has.

Not always. Nannys are sometimes the first teacher a child has. More often than not, the first teaching children get is pain.

Parents also have the compassion

BIG assumption, and a false one at that. I don't know about you, but all of my teachers had compassion

and can be “taught” the appropriate methods to discuss such things with their own children.

Nononono

Whether they know the appropriate method is irrelevant. The question is do they actually USE the appropriate method. A teacher, however, is checked upon fairly regularly to see if he/she does use the appropriate method.

It isn’t hard to imagine, especially if the parents love their children.

Key word: if!

Government dictation is not the answer to education. How about a little love? You know something the big governments don’t understand on an individual level because they don’t have the time.

Pfft - teachers are the ones that teach the material, and they do understand both compassion and love and can teach it with both in mind.

Well no. With the repeal the governments would “URGE” the parents to go to classes and become more educated about sexual education and how to talk about it with ease to their own children. I mean unless your people are nothing but “human-resources”.

Our children and the futures of our people deserve better than this. Don’t leave their futures in the hands of uncertainty.

What if the parents and the kids never talk to one another? What if the parents consider their kids "human resources"

sexual education is very important in teaching young children, who are now more interested in sex then ever, about the basics and the consequences of teen sex. more and more teens are contracting std's and aids, using this as an education source, may cut down the hiv population and help us overcome an epidemic.

bdon is FOR sexual education.

also, if you're saying other countries sexual education doesnt affect you, well it does. say someone from another country comes in and spreads and std.. i think it would affect you then. wouldnt it?
Actually in my government we have a strict foreign policy, which is under control by the military portion of the government. Foreigners are "expected" to turn themselves into the government officials at the very gates of the air-port for full medical, criminal, and family inspection. Those who fail will immediatly be "EJECTED" from the country.

However theres always a few that try to sneak in. Considering that we have cameras on every corner of every street these "law-breakers" would have to try very hard to do anything productive within our country. If such an individual is caught, authorities will then take them to be fully examined and then if clean, their assests are seized, and they will be "EJECTED" from the country.

However if the individual does not pass the rules in some fashion, they will be taken to a military confinement, where they will be interrogated for all information and purpose of their "invasion". Once proper authorities are satisfied with the results they will be immediatly disposed of.

Not always. Nannys are sometimes the first teacher a child has. More often than not, the first teaching children get is pain.

Pain??! You teach your children pain first? Thats pretty sick. A nanny in my eyes is considered a parental figure. Sorry for not "clarifying that better for you.


BIG assumption, and a false one at that. I don't know about you, but all of my teachers had compassion

Uhmm no. Teachers arent "expected" to have compassion. Its great that you have had a few a few that did but thats a big ASSUMPTION to think all teachers are better than the parental figures at such a thing.


Whether they know the appropriate method is irrelevant. The question is do they actually USE the appropriate method. A teacher, however, is checked upon fairly regularly to see if he/she does use the appropriate method.

Well if theyre taking special classes to learn on how to distribute the information I would like to think they wouldnt just turn around and go "NAH NAH!!! I know something YOU DONT!!" to their children. But hey whatever kind of parents you endorse is okay by me. see my foreign policy



Key word: if!

Parents in your country dont love their children?


Pfft - teachers are the ones that teach the material, and they do understand both compassion and love and can teach it with both in mind.

Thats an assumption as well. just because they have a teacher as their label doesnt make them the be all end all of guidance and reasoning. Come on.. you cant really believe that.


What if the parents and the kids never talk to one another? What if the parents consider their kids "human resources"

What kind of world do you live in where parents and children never talk to each other? This is far fetched and complete absurdity. Regardless though, if the parents do consider their children as resources, than perhaps they need to discover therapy. However if they still choose not to go and improve their relationships with their child, then perhaps more drastic government legislature needs to be admonished. But thats a different topic all together and has no relevance with the teaching of sexual education to children.

But thanks anyways.

I Voted in Favor Of the reolution cuz i think that its acceptable for my nation to think that a proper sex education in the adolesence years helps the youth of the nations. I do find the fears of teaching homosexuality to students below the age of 18 misplaced, cuz we as a nation are grown up enough to understand that kids do talk about sex when they are in their teens, and to properly give them an insight to the realities of sex by virtue of sex eduaction will act as a detterent to AIDS and STDs moreover we can do away with the unwanted pregnancy stuffs. People have every right to know about the most primitive instinct of humanity, and lets not beat the bush and pretend like an ostrich.
With power comes responsibility and we must have a system in place to teach the students about it. Though there will be definitely issues which might come in as a detterent, but stoping a cause for these things will undermine the effort of being a responsible human being.

Inidan Subcontinent

*sighs* here we go again

Pain??! You teach your children pain first? Thats pretty sick.

No, abusive households do

A nanny in my eyes is aconsidered a parental figure. Sorry for not "clarifying that better for you.

Ah - you didn't say parental figure. But alright, we'll work from there

Uhmm no. Teachers arent "expected" to have compassion. Its great that you have had a few a few that did but thats a big ASSUMPTION to think all teachers are better than the parental figures at such a thing.

You'd be amazed at the number of parents that have absolutely zero compassion for their children. You'd be amazed at the sheer percentage of teachers that do. They teach because they love it - whether it be because they love to teach or because they love the kids. They are passionate about their job, and thus I would say that they are probably going to be caring about their job - and therefore, compassionate to the student.

Parents often are put in that position because she found out she was pregnant and they freaked out for a while. They don't want the kid, but they're stuck with him/her because for some reason, they won't give him/her up for adoption.

BTW - those are the same people who make the first lesson "pain"

Actually, a quick skim through the rest of your material, I'm stopping here:

1) While most parents love their children and will provide as much information as they can to their children, a VAST percentage do not do at least one of those two. A governmental policy on sex education is there to fill in the gaps so that children do get the details
2) There is a rather high percentage of the populace that believes it knows better than science and law and no matter what information we give them at any training, they're still going to believe they know better and will fail to teach them the appropriate material. A government policy that requires people who are regularly checked to supply this information directly to the student will help fill the gaps
3) If the student is unable to understand the information then, at least he/she will have the information in notes somewhere from before. They will at least remember that this kind of information was covered previously and can look back - or go back to the source they originally got the information from.
4) I agree that teachers may not always be the most caring people on the planet, but as noted above, they are teaching because they either love kids or love to teach - often both. The latter of the two a large percentage of parents don't have, and the former a fair number of parents don't have (like I said, you'd be amazed at how high the number of those people are). Combined, there is a vast minority of the populace that meets both requirements simultaneously (and a large number of them....are teaching)
5) TBH, I fail to see why one needs to be compassionate or loving when this subject is taught.

Ok. Fine. Than someone answer me this then.

Why does the government have to be involved with teaching our children the delicate nature of sex, and everything related?
Why cant the government choose to instead educate adults/families/parental guardians (families have consenting adults) about sex, and let those adults/families/parental guardians decide when they feel their child is "ready" for the knowledge?
The policy doesnt respect individual status and therefore can cause quite alot of confusion for those children who aren't ready to learn about sex, regardless of what "government statistics" say when they are.

Just curious since you are a fellow Comrade after all.

Your timidity about when children are "ready" for sexual knowledge only goes to show how the old tenets of sexual miseducation have bread ignorance, repression, and fear about something as natural as breathing and is exactly why a progressive resolution by an accountable and monitored UN is necessary. For millennia, cultures all across the globe treated their sexual nature with respect and revelry. It was an ingrained part of their society and was openly displayed, revered, and honored. Most of the discussion about this subject reaks of the terrible backwash of two thousand years of religious puritanism and covert control mechanisms.
It is task of the UN, in its democratic wisdom, to put science and humanity in front of wives-tales, ignorance, and denial. Unfortunately, this is something that the NAtionStates can't merely avoid in the hopes that parents will be responsible enough to not spread misinformation. A fool would be so trustworthy.

Comrade B. Sleazy

Relax Forgottenlands. I hold respect for those who can challenge my points of view. I'm sorry if you feel this is a "pain", but believe me when I say we are both being watched and listened to on our viewpoints. Take some dignity in that. :)


No, abusive households do

Well you don't really believe that a majority of households abuse their children. It is sad that it is a "reality" that we must face however, that part of delegation resides in your countries "The Department of Child-Family Services", and how they choose to find a solution to that problem. Something that doesn’t really have to profound an effect on this matter. Though I will say this, in such a household where a child is regularly abused (verbal, physical, or even sexually), in my government those children would immediately become property of the state and thus would have little choice to learn about sexuality from anyone other than the government appointed officials...unless that child were adopted. Orphans are the "exception" to us, not the rule.

You'd be amazed at the number of parents that have absolutely zero compassion for their children. You'd be amazed at the sheer percentage of teachers that do. They teach because they love it - whether it is because they love to teach or because they love the kids. They are passionate about their job, and thus I would say that they are probably going to be caring about their job - and therefore, compassionate to the student.

Parents often are put in that position because she found out she was pregnant and they freaked out for a while. They don't want the kid, but they're stuck with him/her because for some reason, they won't give him/her up for adoption.

BTW - those are the same people who make the first lesson "pain"

Your right about teachers and the reason they choose their profession, but the same can be said about the love of the parents. Just because a "minority" of parents chooses to abuse and hurt their children does that mean it’s expected that all parents will do this? That’s absurd. There are many good teachers out there and I will give you all the credit for that however a teacher cannot be emotionally attached to every single child that goes into her classroom. Some teachers have classes with more than 50 people at a time! Within that there is a detachment every year for the child thus rendering the trust factor between child and student very weak upon the next school year. It would be very consuming and pain-staking for a teacher to be everywhere at once dedicated to the purpose of solely answering each child’s questions. The numbers of students overwhelm the teachers by many, so this doesn’t seem like an appropriate solution.

Once again about the parents, you’re right. Some are unfit to be parents or "parental" figures and thus this should be discovered and solved by "The Department of Child-Family Services". That is the reason for their creation, to make sure a child has every correct and proper situation when growing up. (I.e. not living in squalor, being medically treated, and no abuse from the parental's et cetera)

As for the first lesson being pain, well that’s an opinion. Not all children receive that as their first lesson perhaps just those who have been constantly miss-treated since day one. It truly pains my heart to think of those children, and it pains me that you think of them first above the more loving family lifestyle. I’m not being sarcastic on that remark. I’m completely genuine.


Actually, a quick skim through the rest of your material, I'm stopping here:

1) While most parents love their children and will provide as much information as they can to their children, a VAST percentage does not do at least one of those two. A governmental policy on sex education is there to fill in the gaps so that children do get the details

That’s iffy at best. Percentages are what a government uses to begin with, when considering any factors within their society. However my point being is that a lot of the time the reason "sex" isn’t brought up with children from the home is due to the parents fearing the result for one reason or another (someone referred me to the word "embarrassed" a lot). These situations can be resolved with proper education "to" the parents. The government isn’t there to be either the extra "love" that a child needs. At least not my government. We do care greatly for our people, we just don’t feel it’s needed to be the "splint" for every broken arm. However once again I'd expect "The Department of Child-Family Services" to take a look into it further if such is needed.


2) There is a rather high percentage of the populace that believes it knows better than science and law and no matter what information we give them at any training, they're still going to believe they know better and will fail to teach them the appropriate material. A government policy that requires people who are regularly checked to supply this information directly to the student will help fill the gaps

Ahh you mean bigots, ignorance, and abusive families again don't you? I could repeat myself again about the child-family thing but you’ve already heard the spiel. In this sense there are a "few" people out there that would consider themselves above science and law however, if these people were "URGED" to go to these classes for education they can either have their issues resolved or at least be watched by the teachers and deemed a threat or a nuisance which would be reviewed by "THE GROUP". (aka "The Department of Child-Family Services") Such people in my "eyes" are criminals for wishing to harm their child by misleading them, and thus will be treated accordingly.


3) If the student is unable to understand the information then, at least he/she will have the information in notes somewhere from before. They will at least remember that this kind of information was covered previously and can look back - or go back to the source they originally got the information from.
The parents can make notes too. Besides that I don’t think there’s ever been a situation where a "young-adult" (lets hope) goes to a party and gets alone in the bedroom with their partner and all of a sudden says "Oh CRAP! Dammed I forgot something, hold on while I retrieve my notes from my sex education class". It’s not feasible and thus eradicated from this debate.


4) I agree that teachers may not always be the most caring people on the planet, but as noted above, they are teaching because they either love kids or love to teach - often both. The latter of the two a large percentage of parents don't have, and the former a fair number of parents don't have (like I said, you'd be amazed at how high the number of those people are). Combined, there is a vast minority of the populace that meets both requirements simultaneously (and a large number of them....are teaching)

There are a lot of views on this. Namely the fact that you feel for some reason that a teachers job is to cater to every child that comes through his/her doors. That’s not true. Their job is to teach regardless of their demeanor. Teach children in a very "general" (and on this matter hopefully) a very unbiased way. Well facts are facts. Children have biased opinions too. They don’t like someone for the color of their hair or they smell funny, or they’re just sick of another child that keeps farting in their general direction. This also applies to how they feel about adults. Just because a teacher has been great to them in one year (usually the length of a child-teacher relationship) you cannot convince me that this relationship would mean more to them than that of their own parentals. That’s silly. The only way I could believe that would be if the parents were abusive.


5) TBH, I fail to see why one needs to be compassionate or loving when this subject is taught.

Because it’s a very delicate subject to talk about. I don’t plan on throwing some porn in the DVD player when my kid gets old enough to understand and just say "There. Learn." Its something that requires a parental to discuss since it has to do with life and death (pregnancy and abortion), and their general health and pleasure. (Avoidance of STD's and prevention)

It’s also something that "marks" a child’s life as a coming of age ceremony. I mean there aren’t any fireworks, bells or whistles but still. It’s the first steps on the road to becoming an adult.

Please don’t take anything I have said in offense. I know I can be a bit of a smart-ass but that comes from being passionate about this point.

Thank you.

Your timidity about when children are "ready" for sexual knowledge only goes to show how the old tenets of sexual miseducation have bread ignorance, repression, and fear about something as natural as breathing and is exactly why a progressive resolution by an accountable and monitored UN is necessary. For millennia, cultures all across the globe treated their sexual nature with respect and revelry. It was an ingrained part of their society and was openly displayed, revered, and honored. Most of the discussion about this subject reaks of the terrible backwash of two thousand years of religious puritanism and covert control mechanisms.
It is task of the UN, in its democratic wisdom, to put science and humanity in front of wives-tales, ignorance, and denial. Unfortunately, this is something that the NAtionStates can't merely avoid in the hopes that parents will be responsible enough to not spread misinformation. A fool would be so trustworthy.

Comrade B. Sleazy

I was expecting more of a definte answer from you but..nonetheless. First off this isnt about issues of what was right a millenia ago, this is about what's right now.
I also dont agree with the ignorance of people on this matter (please read ANY of my other posts) however I do feel it is wrong for the children to be subject to this.
But I also dont feel "bath-houses" and "brothels" though public are the "correct" ways children should learn about sex. Both of those were common establishments from "back then" and now they are frowned upon. I suppose comrade you'd choose to re-establish those back into mainstream society as well?

I don't believe in hoping the minority is small enough to not be worried about it. Quite frankly, I don't trust parents to do their jobs. However, it is quite plain that this is a position I will not be able to convince you of, and I find this entire resolution rather draining on me. As such, I am withdrawing from this debate.

The teachers I've had have always been more interested in my life than some of the parents of my friends have been in theirs. I have seen some of the most disgusting, neglectful parents in existance. I have seen children who have only had a source of information coming from the school system and whatever porn they watched online (well.....and siblings). I have seen kids who have barely gotten their diploma because their parents never were paying attention to their marks or the continual phone calls home about skipped classes, nor the fact that their child was going to bed 3 hours before his classes started.

I do not trust parents to do their jobs

I never will trust parents to do their jobs

When it comes to education, I will always believe in those who are monitored by the government on a regular basis, not those who are monitored when they get flagged as anomolies.

I voted for this resolution.
If we, as adults, teachers, politians and role models cannot teach our children about sex, sexual issues, diseases,the consequences of sexual activity, et cetera, then who will?
We need to teach children about these things, so that they know how to prevent contracting an STD, or getting pregnant before they want to.
No one else will teach them this but us. Parents are too uncomfortable with teaching their children about Sexual issues, and are often ill informed as it is, some refusing to teach them proper birth control methods.
In the Rogue Nation of Cruel Craze, we are commited to arming our children with knowledge that will help them to be healthy, happy adults.
Thank you.

My nation agrees almost completely with this resolution. We, however, shall vote against due to the clause "without value judgement," about which other nations have expressed their dismay also. We are a moralistic and religious nation, and would like to preserve those values.

I voted for this resolution.
If we, as adults, teachers, politians and role models cannot teach our children about sex, sexual issues, diseases,the consequences of sexual activity, et cetera, then who will?
We need to teach children about these things, so that they know how to prevent contracting an STD, or getting pregnant before they want to.
No one else will teach them this but us. Parents are too uncomfortable with teaching their children about Sexual issues, and are often ill informed as it is, some refusing to teach them proper birth control methods.
In the Rogue Nation of Cruel Craze, we are commited to arming our children with knowledge that will help them to be healthy, happy adults.
Thank you.
Uhmm then you want to vote "against" this resolution then. Since it endorses the government to be in charge of sexual education amongst children.

By the way thank you Forgottenlands for our debate.

The central government has no place in people's personal lives, and I can't think of anything more personal than sex. Certainly having a curriculum for health issues that involve sexual behaviour and sexual organs makes sense, but this should be taught in the framework of health education. This resolution is not specific enough about what, exactly, the curriculum of the proposed sex education is to consist of. Will it teach that no one should have sex before marriage? Will it teach that abortion is "wrong?" Will it teach that all boys should be circumcised? Will it teach about birth control? There is a lot of gray area that gets into very personal and individual belief systems, and these should not be mixed up with governments.

The Sultanate of Nine Cats

Uhmm then you want to vote "against" this resolution then. Since it endorses the government to be in charge of sexual education amongst children.

No, I wanted to vote for. If my government is in charge of sexual education in the Rogue Nation of Cruel Craze, then I can be sure it will be done right.

I voted for this resolution.
If we, as adults, teachers, politians and role models cannot teach our children about sex, sexual issues, diseases,the consequences of sexual activity, et cetera, then who will?
We need to teach children about these things, so that they know how to prevent contracting an STD, or getting pregnant before they want to.

Yes, but why should the UN bother about it? It's okay if you want to do so in your country, but another one might want to do it differently, and this resolution prevents that. Without any good reason even. I don't care if another country doesn't teach sex education. I do, but that doesn't bother other nations. So why the UN resolution?

Yes, but why should the UN bother about it? It's okay if you want to do so in your country, but another one might want to do it differently, and this resolution prevents that. Without any good reason even. I don't care if another country doesn't teach sex education. I do, but that doesn't bother other nations. So why the UN resolution?

Amen Groot Gouda. Good point. It does seem a bit "pushy" of the UN to dictate whether we should even be urged to do this. I feel its our country, leave our way of life alone.

The Free Land of CTerryland was voting FOR this resolution but has changed its mind. We feel this resolution does not respect nations varied cultures and beliefs about sex and instead forces a very narrow view off sex upon the Nationstates world. First of all why 18? Every nation views adults and maturity differently. We in CTerryland teach the full gamut of sex education in schools while the children are still pre-teens, and therefore for us this resolution would change nothing, yet other nations have discussed a preference for church and family orientated sex education. While the Free Land of CTerryland finds this method to be inadequate for us, we believe in a nations right to choose. We do wish to see sex education across the UN, but we would rather see a much broader resolution created allowing for different concepts of emotional maturity and different methods rather than what is practically cultural imperialism via the an international organisation.

I voted against this resoution because it is not clear how to teach, and could lead to the sexual abuse of a child, from a teacher who can justify it by saying that it's apart of the learning process. Also for the reason that sex ed is something that should not be regulated by the UN because it impeads on a nations right to establish a government free of oppression from an outside force. Mandating clean water is one thing, but sex ed is quite another.

I voted against this resoution because it is not clear how to teach, and could lead to the sexual abuse of a child, from a teacher who can justify it by saying that it's apart of the learning process. Also for the reason that sex ed is something that should not be regulated by the UN because it impeads on a nations right to establish a government free of oppression from an outside force. Mandating clean water is one thing, but sex ed is quite another.
OOC: To be fair the Nationstates UN goes far beyond what the real world UN does. Other resolutions include legalising Euthanasia, Gay Marriage and Prostitution in all member states. The real UN would never DREAM of such things. Sex Ed is nothing compared to that.

This resolution is being heavily supported. It will eventually pass. I am in total agreement with this proposal.

This resolution is being heavily supported. It will eventually pass. I am in total agreement with this proposal.
It may well pass, but I have a sneaking suspicion it will be repealed pretty quickly.

The Free Land of CTerryland was voting FOR this resolution but has changed its mind. We feel this resolution does not respect nations varied cultures and beliefs about sex and instead forces a very narrow view off sex upon the Nationstates world. First of all why 18? Every nation views adults and maturity differently. We in CTerryland teach the full gamut of sex education in schools while the children are still pre-teens, and therefore for us this resolution would change nothing, yet other nations have discussed a preference for church and family orientated sex education. While the Free Land of CTerryland finds this method to be inadequate for us, we believe in a nations right to choose. We do wish to see sex education across the UN, but we would rather see a much broader resolution created allowing for different concepts of emotional maturity and different methods rather than what is practically cultural imperialism via the an international organisation.

I note that the 18 was put in more to coincide with previous education resolution (all governments are required to provide education free of charge until you're 18....)

It may well pass, but I have a sneaking suspicion it will be repealed pretty quickly.I can't see why. The majority is in favour of this resolution. If the minority can't handle it then I suggest they leave the UN. I believe the UN should work for closer integration of it's laws and members.

I can't see why. The majority is in favour of this resolution. If the minority can't handle it then I suggest they leave the UN. I believe the UN should work for closer integration of it's laws and members.
Because many who frequent this forum disapprove of it. I don't have 100% experience I'll be the first to admit, but when there is a vocal contingent of 'core' UNers against a resolution I find it is more likely to get repealed. An example being the Protection of Dolphins Act which looks likely to get repealed very soon.

Because many who frequent this forum disapprove of it. I don't have 100% experience I'll be the first to admit, but when there is a vocal contingent of 'core' UNers against a resolution I find it is more likely to get repealed. An example being the Protecting of Dolphins Act which looks likely to get repealed very soon.
And our region of Red Peril & our allies will be there to make sure it does get repealed.

My nation of Atomican, has voted against this whole thing. As far as we're concerned this is something that individual nations must decide. Atomican will not suffer if some dude somewere far away dosn't no to keep his mini-self to himself and gets some chick knocked-up. The only way my nation would be affected by this, is if some idiot brought over some kind of diesease and starts spreading all over the Armed Republic of Atomican. And then we would "deport" that peice of crap.

Given the rise of STDs in many 3rd world countries, as well as countries who deliberately suppress sexual education, I would say that this resolution is just what is needed. However some nations might object to the portion of the resolution that states that information about abortion rights and possibly same sex relationships. Especially nations in which abortion is illegal and homosexuals are persecuted (Nations strongly influenced by religion, perhaps). Personally, I think this resolution is great. The people need to be educated. I predict, despite the protests of the these countries and the indifference of others, it will pass. I hope it does.

-E- Sexual activity is a common activity, contributing to the happiness of many people, worldwide

This part bothers me a little, mainly because sex is such a superficial pleasure, created and dissolved very rapidly. By admitting that it contributes to happiness of many people are you not perhaps saying to undecided citizens that sex IS a key to happiness, no matter who it is with?

I didn't voice my concern as eloquently and clearly as I would have liked, but I do believe this part of the resolution endorses sex outside of marriage for the sake of happiness. Be that as it may, I agree with the majority of the resolution and will vote yes.

My nation of Atomican, has voted against this whole thing. As far as we're concerned this is something that individual nations must decide. Atomican will not suffer if some dude somewere far away dosn't no to keep his mini-self to himself and gets some chick knocked-up. The only way my nation would be affected by this, is if some idiot brought over some kind of diesease and starts spreading all over the Armed Republic of Atomican. And then we would "deport" that peice of crap.
People ahve been known to cross borders.

And having different meanings for sex in different countries can be harmfull
if you don't know what your getting yourself into.

This resolution is being heavily supported. It will eventually pass. I am in total agreement with this proposal.

yeah, and i thought the transgender was a shoo-in...

this is no business for the UN. it seems like fembots
are taking advantage of a wonderful system
i mean the act mentions a woman's clit :confused:

talk about govt controlling your body

yeah, and i thought the transgender was a shoo-in...

this is no business for the UN. it seems like fembots
are taking advantage of a wonderful system
i mean the act mentions a woman's clit :confused:

talk about govt controlling your body
the clit part was alittle odd
but i just thought that was just nationstates being weird again

the clit part was alittle odd
but i just thought that was just nationstates being weird again

No its more "double-talk", covering up the resolutions true agenda.

Allowing the government to dictate the minds of the children.

Because many who frequent this forum disapprove of it. I don't have 100% experience I'll be the first to admit, but when there is a vocal contingent of 'core' UNers against a resolution I find it is more likely to get repealed. An example being the Protection of Dolphins Act which looks likely to get repealed very soon.

Of the "core" UN, there's only been 3 that have actually opposed it (including yourself). No one else that has traditionally perked my interest has put their neck out in opposition to this.

If we still start seeing people drift away from this resolution after it's passed, then you might be right (in fact, that is what we saw with the Dolphin resolution - a lot of people went "why did we protect a non-endangered species?" The reasons against this are too varied that I think an actual repeal will come in place before a replacement for the actual resolution will be ready.

Because many who frequent this forum disapprove of it. I don't have 100% experience I'll be the first to admit, but when there is a vocal contingent of 'core' UNers against a resolution I find it is more likely to get repealed. An example being the Protection of Dolphins Act which looks likely to get repealed very soon.
If the majority sees fit to repeal it in the future then so be it. Allthough I seriously doubt that they can vote with such vast support, and then suddonly change their opinion on it 180º.

I will be glad when this will pass. Then, finally, someone will HAVE to tell me what that thingy between my legs is made for! :fluffle:

Heh, my thoughts exactly.

I vote in favour of this proposal. Wonderfully written. Let the sexually conservative hypocrits come and I shall be ready for them. :D

Debating as to why this is an issue is to miss the point entirely. You are either in favour or against the idea. Vote according to your opinion. I believe it should be our goal as UN members to shape the UN in our image. If it isn't wanted as a resolution then it will not be passed. We must accept the judgement of the majority.


You know i try to be at least mildly polite in these posts but this is to much. You sir are an idiot. This is not just am idological debate but also a debate over whether or not it is your right or in this case the UN's right to inforce an opinion on its constituents.

Also i think you are entirely wrong about making the UN in your immage. The UN has a mandate to provide wide ranging tolerance for all types of people groups and beliefs. Each resolution is a balancing act between making the world a better place and not destroying the very cultures and beliefs that make the world what it is. Your blith presumption to remake the world in your image smacks of fascism. Does no one have a right to be differant? Must we all conform intirely to the views of the majority? I think not.

On another front it is pointless to say we must acccept the judgement of the majority (because we have no choice but to acept it). The sentiment that sponed it is also stupid in the extreme. I advise you to look into the concept of tyrany of the majority. Just because the majority of people believe in something does not make it true. If it did the world would be flat and the center fo the universe.

Please don't talk without thinking. It just takes up space and annoys those who are actually interested in this topic.

Fleecedom

I find this a patronizing resolution. Although I value sexual education and the Groot Gouda education system provides in most what this resolution asks, why force the contents of lessons through a UN resolution? What should the UN have to do with this? Lack of sex education is a national problem. My nation does not suffer from other nations not giving any sex education.

This resolution is way too detailed, in my opinion, which doesn't take into account the varied nature of NationStates cultures accros the planets.

I shall vote Against.


I'm not arguing for or against this resolution at this point. I dont really see it as important. But to set your fears at rest reread the exact wording. It "Urges" everyone to do this. It doesnt make us. Its a sugestion nothing more and as such has no power to force you to do anything. Pass it if you want its compleatly pointless.

Fleecedom

The only thing this resolution will do to the youth of Our nation, is give them more confidence in relation to sex. The risks are already well-known throughout Nevermoore and We're certain anyone living here with a brain knows about safe-sex. We do not see why it is necessary to gie our youth an in-depth SEMINAR on how to pleasure yourself and others. Dear God above, there are some things we like to keep more private in this land. How dare the UN insult Our nation. How dare you infringe on Our right to raise Our children.

STD education, We've got it covered.
Birth control and how to use it. We've got that too.
101 ways to pleasure members of the opposite sex, same sex, and yourself. NO! Back off!

WITH NO VALUE JUDGMENT???
It looked okay for a while there, then they started sticking in stuff that has no place.. and the magical number of 18.. and finally with that line, it loses all credibility. Sex without values is a powerful evil and everyone knows it.


I would like to meet this Everyone somday he sure casues a lot of problems. How the hell can you just say that sex witought values is a powerful evil without giving a shred of prouf or even a decent argument for it? You may well be right but you just sound dumb saying it like you did. Try again with soem effort this time.

Fleecedom

:gundge: :mp5:

People have relationships when they have sex. Now, I don't know how limited your experience is, but to say that same-sex or opposite-sex relationships have nothing to do with sex or sex-ed is, well, stupid. There are other things to object to in this resolution without having to resort to thinly veiled homophobia.


I have to disagree with you. If you had actually read his post you would know that he advised the teaching of how the body works not of how to profesionally stimulate the body. He advocated the teaching of the physiology of the body. As far as i read his post it has to do with with the reproduction and biological side fo the issue rather than anything to do with relationships.

Same sex relationships ARE part of sex ed as it is about a persons sexuality and people should be guided to see that all loving relationships are valid. Abortion is also a part of sex education as it is one of the most ragic consequences of sex and young girls in particular should know what happens so they can avoid going through it themselves.


Fortunatly as far as i know this body has not made a decision either way for the issue of abortion. As such it is illegal in many nations, including mine for most casses, and what is the point of teaching about an issue that is illegal? If you want to do this you would need a resolution allowing abortion to come first. I dont believe it is this body's right to decide that issue either. I dont force otheres to believe what i do and i apreciate them not trying to force me.

Fleecedom

You know i try to be at least mildly polite in these posts but this is to much. You sir are an idiot. Where have I failed to be polite? I'd say calling me an idiot isn't very polite and is quite uncalled for.
This is not just am idological debate but also a debate over whether or not it is your right or in this case the UN's right to inforce an opinion on its constituents.Fair enough. I believe that we as UN members should be shaping the UN and it's laws so that it represents it's members as best it can. I am in favour of this resolution, so I vote in favour. I don't feel that this resolution warrants consideration on my part on the issue of it being acceptable or not to enforce among nations that don't feel the same way about it. I am in favour of this resolution, I feel that it is beneficial to Canada6 and I feel it will be beneficial to any other nation.

Also i think you are entirely wrong about making the UN in your immage. The UN has a mandate to provide wide ranging tolerance for all types of people groups and beliefs. Each resolution is a balancing act between making the world a better place and not destroying the very cultures and beliefs that make the world what it is. Your blith presumption to remake the world in your image smacks of fascism. I have never been so insulted before in my NS career.

I didn't say remake the world in my image. It's up to democracy to decide. If there is a majority vote that passes the resolution then we must comply in following the rules. It's not my will that matters here, but the will of the vast majority that is voting favorably on this proposal. There can never be a unanimous vote and I fail to see how this resolution is different from any other resolution that is passed. There are always nations that vote against, but they nonetheless must comply with them once they are passed.

Does no one have a right to be differant? The different Ideas should and must be debated.
Must we all conform intirely to the views of the majority? I think not.UN Members must comply to all UN resolutions. I'm sure I've read that somewhere. The alternative is leaving the UN to avoid having to comply. It happens all the time.

On another front it is pointless to say we must acccept the judgement of the majority (because we have no choice but to acept it). My point exactly. Under current rules it's comply or leave.
The sentiment that sponed it is also stupid in the extreme. I advise you to look into the concept of tyrany of the majority. Just because the majority of people believe in something does not make it true. If it did the world would be flat and the center fo the universe.There are many resolution currently in effect that I do not Agree with and I have also voted against several resolutions. Yet I choose to comply with them. I am not obliged. I can leave the UN any time I feel like. There is no Tyrrany. Political concessions are part of this game called politics.

Please don't talk without thinking. It just takes up space and annoys those who are actually interested in this topic.Was it becuase I forgot to strategically place a few lols and smileys in my text that got me into trouble or is it becuase you haven't checked up on the definition of Sarcasm lately? Lighten up.


P.S. I find it quite ironic, to know that you are concerned about the political freedoms of UN members when the populace of the Empire of Fleecedom itself has absolutely no political freedom whatsoever.

Where have I failed to be polite? I'd say calling me an idiot isn't very polite and is quite uncalled for.
Fair enough. I believe that we as UN members should be shaping the UN and it's laws so that it represents it's members as best it can. I am in favour of this resolution, so I vote in favour. I don't feel that this resolution warrants consideration on my part on the issue of it being acceptable or not to enforce among nations that don't feel the same way about it. I am in favour of this resolution, I feel that it is beneficial to Canada6 and I feel it will be beneficial to any other nation.

I have never been so insulted before in my NS career.

I didn't say remake the world in my image. It's up to democracy to decide. If there is a majority vote that passes the resolution then we must comply in following the rules. It's not my will that matters here, but the will of the vast majority that is voting favorably on this proposal. There can never be a unanimous vote and I fail to see how this resolution is different from any other resolution that is passed. There are always nations that vote against, but they nonetheless must comply with them once they are passed.

The different Ideas should and must be debated.
UN Members must comply to all UN resolutions. I'm sure I've read that somewhere. The alternative is leaving the UN to avoid having to comply. It happens all the time.

My point exactly. Under current rules it's comply or leave.
There are many resolution currently in effect that I do not Agree with and I have also voted against several resolutions. Yet I choose to comply with them. I am not obliged. I can leave the UN any time I feel like. There is no Tyrrany. Political concessions are part of this game called politics.

Was it becuase I forgot to strategically place a few lols and smileys in my text that got me into trouble or is it becuase you haven't checked up on the definition of Sarcasm lately? Lighten up.


P.S. I find it quite ironic, to know that you are concerned about the political freedoms of UN members when the populace of the Empire of Fleecedom itself has absolutely no political freedom whatsoever.


Well to start with i didnt imply that you were impolite but rather bemoaned the fact that you had driven me to be.

Second I specifically stated that it was not right that every one conform INTIRELY to the views of the UN. I didnt say we shouldnt obey its rules but rather tht those rules must be made to give a wide degree of flexibilitie. One has a right to be differant even though you must obey certain points. Obeying a law and conforming to an image are entireely differant.

Lastly the insult was returned when you assumed I didnt like your post because you didnt include smiley's If you care to look i have used exactly 1 icon in all my posts. Further more in every case i debated the content of your post not the spelling, grammer lack of warm fuzzy feeling's or any other nonsense. To atempt shift blame like this is rather pathetic.


As for your P.S. dont you think that not having any political freedoms requires a certain amount of political freedom for the government? I dont believe the adverage pereson is smart enough to rule himself/herslef/itslef/whatver other political claptrap you want to add, but i don't try to force others to believe that. I believe in political freedoms for those smart enough to use them wisly. Hopfully that includes some fo the goverments fo this body.

Fleecedom

Fortunatly as far as i know this body has not made a decision either way for the issue of abortion. As such it is illegal in many nations, including mine for most casses, and what is the point of teaching about an issue that is illegal? If you want to do this you would need a resolution allowing abortion to come first. I dont believe it is this body's right to decide that issue either. I dont force otheres to believe what i do and i apreciate them not trying to force me.

Fleecedom

The UN has made a decision on abortion, its here....

Abortion Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030173&postcount=62)

It is legal in all UN nations, as is homosexuality, including their right to marry, which is protected under several resolutions.

I just had a "devious" thought. The resolution does not tell the manner or how we teach the various things proposed by the resolution. We may "indoctrinate" all we want. Just a loophole for Conservatives. :)

Lastly the insult was returned when you assumed I didnt like your post because you didnt include smiley's If you care to look i have used exactly 1 icon in all my posts. Further more in every case i debated the content of your post not the spelling, grammer lack of warm fuzzy feeling's or any other nonsense. To atempt shift blame like this is rather pathetic.Whatever. Calling me a fascist was uncalled for and unfounded. I am no such thing and the very thought repugnates me.

As for your P.S. dont you think that not having any political freedoms requires a certain amount of political freedom for the government? Oh of course it does. The problem is that it leaves none for the people.
I dont believe the adverage pereson is smart enough to rule himself/herslef/itslef/whatver other political claptrap you want to add, but i don't try to force others to believe that. See that's where you and I differ. I believe in an educated society where people are free to make decisions and have well informed opinions.

I believe in political freedoms for those smart enough to use them wisly. I believe in political freedoms for everyone, and also that access to information or education should be limitless.

You know i got drawn in to a discussion about this when i came back from a semester at colledge...with a parant. That was awkward as all hell. At the same time i recall that the so called "health" classes in highschool were a joke.

I think we need to define what we want this resolution to stop and or help. I would assume it is to help prevent unwanted pregnacy's, to stop the spread of STD's and to increase happiness. I think the happiness issue is the only one mentioned in the resolution. That seems a bit shortsighted to me but whatever.

That said however. A question i truly dont know the answer to, is passing out condoms incoraging miners (for whom sex is illegal anyway) to have sex or is it simply recognizing that they will have sex anyway and trying to make that situation the least harmful?

Is sexual education going to stop aid's and other such things from happening? I can't see how personally. I think everyone on this site knows that you can get aid's from unprotected sex yet polls seem to indicate that something like 1 in 5 will have aids by 2010. I think that pole is outdated and its much worse now as well. So what does education do? I would like to know.

Fleecedom

A question i truly dont know the answer to, is passing out condoms incoraging miners (for whom sex is illegal anyway)lol?

I think everyone on this site knows that you can get aid's from unprotected sex yet polls seem to indicate that something like 1 in 5 will have aids by 2010.You are aware that sex isn't the only way AIDS spreads right?

Whatever. Calling me a fascist was uncalled for and unfounded. I am no such thing and the very thought repugnates me.

Oh of course it does. The problem is that it leaves none for the people.
See that's where you and I differ. I believe in an educated society where people are free to make decisions and have well informed opinions.

You know i truly wish you were right but unfortunatly the present state of afairs seems to dispute that belief. Can you trully look at America and still tell me that the adverage person has a clue what is going on? Especially considering that an extremily large percent of voters vote this last election on wether they "liked" the candidate or not? On both sides that is by the way.

I believe in political freedoms for everyone, and also that access to information or education should be limitless.


It is repugnate to you and yet you still advocate the destruction of diversity? You cant have it both ways.

You know i agree with the second part of your last statment. That access to education and information should be available to everyone. Notice the word available. You cant force anyone to learn. Look at public schools to validate that comment. It is in finding who takes advantage of the education and information avalable who should be allowed a say in decisions.

It is repugnate to you and yet you still advocate the destruction of diversity? Putting it simply... No I don't.

The UN has made a decision on abortion, its here....

Abortion Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030173&postcount=62)

It is legal in all UN nations, as is homosexuality, including their right to marry, which is protected under several resolutions.


Hmm thanks. Now can you tell me why i was just asked as an issue where or how abortion should be allowed and it was in my national statment that we dont allow it except for certain casses?

lol?

You are aware that sex isn't the only way AIDS spreads right?


thats is a useless argument because it is the MAIN way aid's is transmitted. Yes it does ocasionaly happen form bad blood transfusions or even from birth on a growing number of casses but sex is still the largest number of transfers.

[QUOTE=Canada6] I believe it should be our goal as UN members to shape the UN in our image.

did you not make this statement? I'm sorry but i cant see it as meaning anything but to imply that others should be made to be like you.

Hmm thanks. Now can you tell me why i was just asked as an issue where or how abortion should be allowed and it was in my national statment that we dont allow it except for certain casses?

Maybe because the UN and the issues are two completly separate parts of the game and the resolution/issue conflict is one of its quirks.

From what I've read the UN resolutions take priority over issues on UN nations and some beings called the UN gnomes will sneak into nations that try to change law by issues and change it back again. Not sure about that though, some of the old timers may have a better idea how it works than me :).

Maybe because the UN and the issues are two completly separate parts of the game and the resolution/issue conflict is one of its quirks.

From what I've read the UN resolutions take priority over issues on UN nations and some beings called the UN gnomes will sneak into nations that try to change law by issues and change it back again. Not sure about that though, some of the old timers may have a better idea how it works than me :).


thanks. And here i thought that because it allowed me to make the decision that thier wernt any resolutions about it yet. Guess i know better now.

Maybe because the UN and the issues are two completly separate parts of the game and the resolution/issue conflict is one of its quirks.

From what I've read the UN resolutions take priority over issues on UN nations and some beings called the UN gnomes will sneak into nations that try to change law by issues and change it back again. Not sure about that though, some of the old timers may have a better idea how it works than me :).

I've come to the conclusion that they have psychic powers that they use to...."influence" the final vote when it gets passed through....er....panned by the national government (or change the will of the dictator in charge if that be the case). Haven't quite figured out how that works though.

thats is a useless argument because it is the MAIN way aid's is transmitted. Yes it does ocasionaly happen form bad blood transfusions or even from birth on a growing number of casses but sex is still the largest number of transfers.Needle Sharing.
I believe it should be our goal as UN members to shape the UN in our image.

did you not make this statement? I'm sorry but i cant see it as meaning anything but to imply that others should be made to be like you.

NO IT DOESN'T!
I stated... "I believe it should be our goal, as UN Members (our as in this body of nations refered to as the United Nations and not Canada6 in particular) to shape the UN in our image." Again OUR as in this body of sovereign nations working together.

It's written in plain english and it's here for everyone to see.

Now might be a good time to quote The Faq:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

My region hasn't decided yet but I find it hard to be very controversial. There's nothing wrong with education.

[-SIZE=4]In reply to another forum user, I must object to them stating that abortion rights and sexual relationships are not in fact sexual education class topics, worthy of being discussed openly and non-propagandistically within said classes, when indeed they are, they have everything to do with sexual education, as these topics are related to sexual intercourse, which is the only logical reason why a women would choose an abortion in the first place, because women on IVF would be extremely unlikely to want an abortion after going through all the effort and traumas of IVF. For the reasons listed above, the Government of Meritocratic Demarchy of Skyscraper Island, on behalf of its peoples, has voted in favour of this resolution. [/SIZE] :fluffle: :D

The Nation State of Conquest Khmer leaves sex education to the private sector.

Our per capita sales of pornographic DVD’s are the highest in Asia.

We don’t need no stinking Resolution.

:sniper:

What if a child under 18 is homosexual? How are they to access resources on their sexuality, how are they to find their identity?

They don't and they shouldn't. Homosexuality is a false explanation of the Confusion a child gets when reaching puberty. you don't induldge that with education, thus strengthening his belief he is gay(which nobody actually IS, just think they are).

Its wrong.

They don't and they shouldn't. Homosexuality is a false explanation of the Confusion a child gets when reaching puberty. you don't induldge that with education, thus strengthening his belief he is gay(which nobody actually IS, just think they are).

Its wrong.
:headbang: :eek:
What is with all the homophobes i've noticed around here trying to say that beign gay is evil and stuff? It is natural, there have been more than a few secular scientific studies stating this as the same behavior is also seen in other mammals plus there have been studies on how people react to pheramones strengthening this arguement. On the other hand the only 'evidence' i have seen is from for Homosexuality being unatural is from ultra rght wing religous psudo-science groups that also refuse to realise that Evolution is very real despite the overwhelming evidence.

The Dynarchist Nation is tempted to vote no on this, surely because it is true that it can hamper the individual parent's responsibility to discuss these issues with their children. However, I think the issue of the clause "without value judgments" is an important one, because I think the only way in which this truly has any point is if there is some kind of value judgment, that is, tolerance. Abstinence programs are popular in many areas, but their effectiveness is poor. We need to make sure that sex education goes beyond abstinence so that there are other options presented if a teen does choose to have sex. As someone said, sexuality is very powerful and important, and as such, there should be some sort of compass about how it should be taught in schools.

[QUOTE=Skyscraper Island][FONT=Trebuchet MS][COLOR=Orange][-SIZE=4]In reply to another forum user, I must object to them stating that abortion rights and sexual relationships are not in fact sexual education class topics, worthy of being discussed openly and non-propagandistically within said classes, when indeed they are, they have everything to do with sexual education, as these topics are related to sexual intercourse..."

Abortion RIGHTS have nothing to do with sex education. Abortion by itself should be discussed (in my opinion) but the point of Sex Education is teaching what sex is, what the parts of the body are for, health and maintenance of said parts (in relation to sex) and (again, my opinion) the consequences of sex, especially unprotected sex (i.e. AIDS, pregnancy).
As for any kind of relationships, remember that you can have sex without a relationship as well. You can also have sex with animals, vegetables, trees and whatever other sick things people can think up. This resolution however wants to narrow that down to same and opposite sex relationships, what about the pedophile relationship? See my point? Relationshsips are not "required" for sex nor do we need to teach people about the various types of relationshis that can result in sex. The object should be to educate young people on "what" it is not the many and varied ways you can get it.

I thought this was a good proposal also, until I considered the following:

A government cannot simply micromanage people's lives. Offering the courses is one thing, but offering seperate courses for each sexual behavior known to man, thus far, is ridiculous. You CANNOT expect a nation to teach their people about such defined sexual behaviors and lifestyles. That is a waste of time, money, and nothing else would get done. I suggest the UN purpose a generic sex course mandate, promoting general sex safety and a general sex knowledge. A government becoming that obsessed with the details....is simply not feasible.

Sanfaustino will vote against this proposal.

While in most nations, sex ed. is woefully lacking, there are some aspects of this bill which are irrelevent to protecting our youth from STI's, unwanted pregnancies, and educating them about safe sex.

For instance, including a section on the clitoris, "the statistically most erogenous zone for women, which is not directly correlated with repoduction" has no place in a sex ed course.

We need to educate youth about how to protect themselves, not 10 ways to please your lover.

The bill is much needed, but it diluted the course with unneccesary materials, that are irrelevent to the true value of sex ed.

This is not the bill to solve this problem.

I vote against it.

many comments i have took the time are asking why the UN is concerned with the sex education in other countries. Why do you think they're is overpopulation in third world countries? because they dont have proper education. to us protection is just common sense if one does not want to get pregnant its been drilled into our heads since about 5th grade.

Offering the courses is one thing, but offering seperate courses for each sexual behavior known to man, thus far, is ridiculous. You CANNOT expect a nation to teach their people about such defined sexual behaviors and lifestyles. That is a waste of time, money, and nothing else would get done. I suggest the UN purpose a generic sex course manadate, promoting general sex safety and a general sex knowledge.

Have you ever been on a losing team? I'll bet you have, and you know how in grade school, the losing team gets all the crap, or gets to pick it up at the end of the game. Is that fun? NO. And you can't make them into a winning team simply by only telling them how to win.

The same goes here, you can't just tell a possibly gay child that they are wrong and that they lose. Perhaps it's been a while but when you're a child, the term "cause I said so" doesn't cut it. So you can't just tell them their opinions are wrong and continue with the rest of the class about their lifestyles, then the kid loses and he gets to pick up the crap. And can you tell me exactly how much more expensive it would be? The original teachings proposed do not even have a price tag, and if they did, are you then putting a price on a child? :(

We need to educate youth about how to protect themselves, not 10 ways to please your lover.

Thank you! :)

:headbang: :eek:
What is with all the homophobes i've noticed around here trying to say that beign gay is evil and stuff? Boy, nothing like calling people names to really make a good impression.

I'm not arguing for or against this resolution at this point. I dont really see it as important. But to set your fears at rest reread the exact wording. It "Urges" everyone to do this. It doesnt make us.

It does, at least technically, I'm sure. The mods don't adjust your stats based on whether you like it or not. So it will be implemented for everybody. The "urging" isn't an excuse to make crappy proposals that nobody has to implement if you don't want. It happens anyway.

From the rules posted in the forum:
UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

So it does make us, it seems.

I have noticed that when i was taught about sseexx in school, that it was only about a man and a woman. How about the gays out there. Children should be taught about men and men together and woman and woman together, instead of being given some rubbish from their friends. :fluffle:

We do not need the United Nations mandating how we handle our personal lives. We do not need the United Nations telling us who to marry, how to have sex, or any other personal decisions.

This issue is ridiculous. The fact is, sex education has failed. In the past, parents and families taught their children about the joys and the dangers of sex. While this was happening there were very few pregnancies out of wedlock, few abortions, and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. Sex Education has merely taught children that sex is expected of them. It has led to an increase in teen age sexuality outside of marriage, one night stands, rapes, etc. It has led to an increase in promiscuity, it has led to an increase in abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.

Take this out of the hands of the United Nations. Let them deal with real problems. Let families be responsible for such things!

We do not need the United Nations mandating how we handle our personal lives. We do not need the United Nations telling us who to marry, how to have sex, or any other personal decisions. That is not the issue here.

The fact is, sex education has failed. In the past, parents and families taught their children about the joys and the dangers of sex. While this was happening there were very few pregnancies out of wedlock, few abortions, and fewer sexually transmitted diseases. There was no such thing as AIDS in the past and also there was very little in the way of diagnostication or openess towards the issue of STD's.

Sex Education has merely taught children that sex is expected of them. Sex is part of being fully alive. Growing up and learning the facts of life. It is vital for human survival.

It has led to an increase in teen age sexuality outside of marriage, one night stands, rapes, etc. What's wrong with sex before marriage and one night stands? A woman that is sexually aware is less likely to be raped than a woman that is sexually naive.
It has led to an increase in promiscuity, it has led to an increase in abortion and sexually transmitted diseases.No. The end of social/moral/religious constraint on human behaviour without proper education on the facts has led to an increase in abortion and STD's. Now... Since we cannot bring back (nor should we bring back) the "old traditional values" because the populace simply no longer believes in it's hyprocrisy, we must go the other way and make sure everyone is well informed and has access to information. That is why I support this resolution.

No. The end of social/moral/religious constraint on human behaviour without proper education on the facts has led to an increase in abortion and STD's. Now... Since we cannot bring back (nor should we bring back) the "old traditional values" because the populace simply no longer believes in it's hyprocrisy,
Which "the populace" are you talking about, here? My nation's populace? Your nation's populace? All people, everywhere?

I'm just asking because I think it's important that we seperate NS world situations from the RL world situations, and this appears to refer to RL western democracies.

[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]"Whatever"

Whatever indeed. Facts are facts. People like the loathsome Keven Federline emerged from a leftist values vacuum, not from anything remotely "conservative"

"Hmm, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised considering your name, but you need to broaden the scope of your consideration. The US has one of the poorest education systems in the world, but just about all the educational systems around the world that are above the US are government funded"

As stated before, we think government funded *biology* education (e.g., this is the menstrual cycle, this is how anal sodomy spreads the deadly AIDS virus, etc). is just fine.

The issue gets thorny when questions such as when's the best age to begin sex, and with whom, and in what context, are raised. Read the resolution again. Those issues are not clearly stated. If there is a movement to amend the resolution to clarify matters, fine, we're all for it.

"No. You are telling them what rights they have in regards to abortion - specifically, the ones granted by past resolutions and any ones that nations have given beyond that past resolutions. It is not trying to claim that abortion is right or wrong, just that you have that right."

Read the resolution again. That is not is as it is stated. If there is a movement to amend the resolution to clarify matters, fine, we're all for it.

It is up to the person (whomever that may be) to decide when to participate in sexual intercourse. Sex education, however, does not encourage teens to have sex, if they're going to do it, then they might as well have some knowledge of intercourse than none. Learning how to use a condom properly doesn't lead to abortions or STDs, how did that train of logic come about? Also, educating children on same-sex relationships would help decrease the number of homophobes.

I will vote for it.

if everyone adopted the currency that we use then there wouldn't be this kinda problem

Boy, nothing like calling people names to really make a good impression.
I believe in being a straight talker. As such i call a spade a spade.

It is up to the person (whomever that may be) to decide when to participate in sexual intercourse. Sex education, however, does not encourage teens to have sex, if they're going to do it, then they might as well have some knowledge of intercourse than none. Learning how to use a condom properly doesn't lead to abortions or STDs, how did that train of logic come about? Also, educating children on same-sex relationships would help decrease the number of homophobes.

I will vote for it.
I completely agree.

I was expecting more of a definte answer from you but..nonetheless. First off this isnt about issues of what was right a millenia ago, this is about what's right now.
I also dont agree with the ignorance of people on this matter (please read ANY of my other posts) however I do feel it is wrong for the children to be subject to this.
But I also dont feel "bath-houses" and "brothels" though public are the "correct" ways children should learn about sex. Both of those were common establishments from "back then" and now they are frowned upon. I suppose comrade you'd choose to re-establish those back into mainstream society as well?

The point of my hearkening back to the civilazations of old was not to drudge up such things as bathhouses and brothels, both of which still exist in droves and are far removed from the point I was making, but to point out what we believe to be the fact that, in our civilizations' move towards modernity there has been a definite and irrefutable influence of religious conservatism and repression amongst peoples of many societies in regards to sexual knowledge and understanding. It is our belief that it is the responsibility of the UN to address issues of public health where they are to be ignored of mishandled by individuals and nationstates.
As with all education, the hardest part is implementing that education and using knowledge to attain wisdom. It has been proven time and again by the regressive powers amongst us, that, if given the choice, many would choose to remain ignorant and keep their children ignorant as well. Merely as a matter of public health (mental and physical), we see this as a resolution that falls firmly within the charter of the organization and as a great call from all member nations to urge science and biology above religious superstition and assumption.
To argue that these matters are personal and the responsibilities of the individual parents is to ignore the obvious and well documented effects of neglect and misinformation on those in the 'public' sphere.
No man is an island.

We eagerly await your reply, comrade.

Comrade B. Sleazy
Head Axe Grinder
The Community of Bienopolis

The Commonwealth of Sylvania and West Jersey is severly distressed about the following clause in the pending resolution:

-2- All Nations to include in these courses, information about male sexuality, female sexuality, opposite-sex relationships, same-sex relationships, masturbation, birth control methods, abortion right, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases without any value judgment

The Commonwealth has voted against this resolution, believing that the United Nations has no authority to impose pro-abortion values on member states, and urges all nations valuing liberty and life to do likewise. An amendment to the resolution, striking the "abortion right" would be accepted.

Sincerely,

Ebbarc Smith and Johannes Fox
Co-Clerks of the Committee of State of the Commonwealth of Sylvania and West Jersey.

Abortion is legal in all UN nations under a previous resolution. I honestly can't see how informing teens they have that right and that it exists is a problem.

You don't need to tell 12 year olds about this, or some of the other points mentioned in the resolution. There is nothing in there that says you can't teach the younger children about their body, hygine, STDs ect and leave the sexuality stuff, same sex relationships, abortion rights ect until they are older, say 16 or 17.

One of the many joys of being King is that I can do what I wish with my Kingdom and my people. I certainly do not need, nor do I want, other nations to dictate to me how my Kingdom should be ruled. I voted against this most inane resolution.

a sex ed. act will increase knowledge of S.T.D's and greatly help the fight against aids. i voted yes because it is a very smart proposal and one that should have been made years ago

One of the many joys of being King is that I can do what I wish with my Kingdom and my people. I certainly do not need, nor do I want, other nations to dictate to me how my Kingdom should be ruled.

It's not required of you to be in the UN. You don't like UN laws... solution easy... leave. :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:
:rolleyes:

My nation grows tired of all the sexually oriented bills being brought up for vote in the UN.
Let us get on with real business and leave these private matters to the people.

The delegation of The Eternal Kawaii could not agree with the esteemed delgate of Clan Collin more. Our representatives are getting tired of having to take a ritual purification bath every time they step back down from the debate podium.

Most people here are teenagers. What do you expect? I'm personally surprised no one here has proposed a resolution giving Heads of State of all UN Nations free whores.

I am forced to respond to a post by someone who seems to have lost full control of his/her faculties for a moment.

First, Canada6 said:
Sex is part of being fully alive. Growing up and learning the facts of life. It is vital for human survival.

I hate to break it to you - sex is not vital for survival. It is nice, fun, enjoyable, beneficial in that it allows the sharing of love - but it is not vital. Proof of that lies in those who have never had or ceased to have sex. Mother Teresa never found it 'vital' for her life. Nor did John Paul II. Many faiths indeed praise the idea of abstention from sex as a great good. There is no one in a grave marked 'died from lack of sex'. Let's not be silly.

The second comment is much more appalling. Canada6 went on to say:
What's wrong with sex before marriage and one night stands? A woman that is sexually aware is less likely to be raped than a woman that is sexually naive.

"A woman that is sexually aware is less likely to be raped than a woman that is sexually naive." This says that the woman has some responsibility for being raped - within the context of the game, I have to say if this is the sort of thinking behind this resolution then the fears of those who oppose it are well grounded. And outside the game - that has now made the list "all-time stupid, moronic, uneducated... you get the idea" comments I have ever heard or read. Not to mention the idea of equating sex and rape.

Sex is the ultimate expression intimacy between two people. It is or ought to be a coming together of two equals, no longer confined to social roles and expectations, but rather uniting physically, emotionally and mentally. Rape is the physical sexual domination by one person of another - it is the antithesis of equality and union. Rather, it involves the forceful taking of something the rapist has no right to.

In light of what rape is, how does the level of sexual experience alter a woman's safety? Rapists don't generally quiz their victims prior to the attack, and most people don't where name tags that list their level of sexual experience. So what is it then? The way they dress? The way they walk or talk? How does the "naive" woman signal she's a better choice? Whatever it is, to suggest that a woman's (or any person's - your statement logically must apply to anyone who is sexually violated, regardless of age or sex) sexual knowledge (or anything else) affects her safety from rape is to, without possibility of logical exception, say that the victim of a sexual crime may or must be at least in part responsible for what has happened to them.

And that is an idea as grotesque as it is stupid.

On behalf of myself, on behalf of New Hastings, on behalf of those who have experienced any form of sexual violence, I demand a complete and unequivocal retraction of the statement, and a full apology. If this is not forthcoming, I would ask the mods to investigate the matter further.

As to the issue of the resolution, before I saw this comment, I was determined to vote no - this resolution represents a creeping infringement on the sovereign rights of individual states, regardless as to whether we are urged or forced. But with the likes of Canada6 supporting the resolution, there is even greater evidence that this is likely the sharp-edge of a sword which will seek to roll back civil rights in the name of "progress". So I will vote against this resolution and call upon all nations to join in defeating the resolution - there is no longer reason to put any confidence in those who back the resolution.

Averroes

and on behalf of New Hastings