Teenage ba-doink-a-doink.

Given my total and absolute disassociation from all of life, or as so categorised by my therapist as 'disengagement, total apathy and sociopathy', I have decided to turn my ire on an issue raised slightly below us. If we take the professional diagnosis as a given, then I feel obliged to do something tangible to rectify the situation. As you can see from my recent stuff, most of it has just been pondering how and why I should kill myself. Having failed twice, however, perhaps someone is trying to tell me that I should try a different tack. Tack is a horrible word, incidentally. Any naysayers can, by-the-by, go fuck themselves: a pyrrhic victory is still a victory. Random rage out of the way: what's wrong with teen fucking?

Abstinence

Anyone who has taken an abstinence pledge should be rounded up and shoved into a concentration camp. In my utopia, however, no one is persecuted simply for being a moron; and thus, fear not, this is not the same as a Nazi concentration camp -- in mine all we ask you to do is concentrate on facts, and not let irrationality guide your decisions. You can believe in creationism, and follow a religion, but because I guarantee that you do not follow the absolutes of said religion I think it's reasonable that we expect you to at least be educated in forms on contraception and sexually transmitted funeases. If your riposte involves any of the following words "proselytizing", "indoctrination", "amoral", "liberalism", "atheism", "moral compass", "unprincipled", then I ask you to remove yourself swiftly from my planet. Thank you. Owing to the fact that I don't carry around abstinence statistics with me, I'm just going to make some blithe assumptions about rates of pregnancy in people who have taken the celibacy route. You're morons, but it's OK because I love you anyway. I'm pretty sure (and this seems a logical thing to conclude) that rates of pregnancy, disease, and other icky-sex things, are all much higher in people who have taken this route. Presumably this is owing to the disavowal of any formal education in contraception, anatomy, biology, etc.? I'm not suggesting that you are forced to sit through classes with people whom you deem immoral, or even amoral, but I am coercing you into at least reading about the topic. You cannot base safe-sex on an ideal: if that were the case we could quite easily write off mental disabilities, genetic mutations, the Pope, &c.. If you can be educated then we can adopt you into the mainstream, or as you could probably call them, the civilized. So this is problem number one with teen rates of pregnancy and all the other bits and pieces (now on referred to as 'problematic teen fucking (PTF)').

Education

I'm not sure of the state of the education system in your respective countries, dear reader(s), but if you're British then you'll be fully aware of the lamentably slap-dash approach we have in this country. Far from institutionalising sex-ed (always makes me think of a teacher just roundly fucking all his students whilst shouting 'THAT'S THE LEARNIN''), we have just let it fester in a swamp of indecision and confusion. Not that I'm advocating institutionalising sex-ed, but at least a systematic, opt-out approach would encompass the majority of the students who live in my secular country. Obviously, the other end of the spectrum is the absolute dissolution and devolution of sex-ed: placing the onus solely on the parents to give their offspring a grounding in reality. My 'country's' government has historically taken the condescending position on parental guidance: that it is flawed, impossible, a dream, and never a reality. Whilst I agree with the essence of the thought (no one is to be entrusted with any kind of useful information, because they're all morons), it hasn't proved germane to the education of the next generation. The problem has arisen, I think, because both parents and leaders have viewed one position absolutely precluding the other. I do not think this is accurate or logical. I think the two can run concurrently with little or no problem. I don't understand why we need one or the other. I foresee few problems which could rise from the bud of teaching and guidance.

I think the main issue parents have is that they might have ideological, political, or sapience-deficient differences with the establishment. Religion aside, because it's an impenetrable quagmire for the most part - but incredibly simple here (religious intolerance of kids fucking, go figure), I think there are some decent points raised, but they're couched so horribly in terms of nouveau-hippy liberalism. The first difference would be ideological: people who disagree with the state taking such an active role in the education of their kids in such pragmatic things such as boning each other. That or just disliking the thought of anyone teaching their kids that such a thing as fucking exists. That's where the PTF comes from, I suppose. If there is a disagreement, then it should be an opt-out system wherein parents are instructed how to teach their children, and given the tools by which to do so. That way the children do not have to face mixed messages between school and home: that isn't conducive to adequate retention of information. Trust me, I'm like... bipolar or something. I embody mixed messages. I am mixed messages. See what I'm doing here? Anyway. In this way we can have some state superintendency over the systematic education of our children. As long as it is ensured that everyone gets an equal and well-proportioned grounding then I don't see it raising too many flags.

Argument against: parents might not do it. That's... well, yes, that's true, but at the moments parents might be telling their children to discount everything they hear in these lessons anyway. So, that's not really a valid objection. Unless you want to entirely overhaul the school system, and if so you are free to do so: get your kids on 'un-schooling'. It's preposterous and is merely synonymous with sensationalist liberalism, but it's your choice to be stubborn if you want. Go for it. I ain't stopping you: I ain't obstreperous like you. Go figure.

So that's the first ideological problem. The second one is too closely related to religion, as I cannot see any parent ideologically disagreeing with sex-ed for their kids, in this situation anyway. The next problem would be political, I suppose. Some people disagree with how different parties run the education of our nation, and that's fine - but it's not reasonable grounds for pulling your child away from crucial life lessons. That would be a grand hypocrisy, my friends, because whilst you admonish schools for their haphazard, and lazy, delivery of sexual-education you sit idly by whilst your children attend lessons such as 'life skills', 'PSE' (where children are taught that racism is bad, and that homophobia is for silly people [assuming that we've become so amoral that these aren't socialised into children by the age of 3]). Whilst you take political umbrage with the institutionalisation (that's such a type-ful) of PTF, you take advice from women such as Dawn Butler (instrumental member of the Department for Children, Schools and Families), who says: "Shakespeare is important, but I would prioritise PSHE". In case you've managed to wade through my parenthesis-strewn-prose (thanks, Will) PSHE is Personal, Social, and Health Education. Sounds great, but what it basically means is "wash, don't swear, don't be a bigot." The actual education in these things comes from science lessons and the like. I would know, I did this shit.

I've put a break here because the last paragraph was hard going. To sum up my feelings about political differences justifying issues with sexual-education, here is a quote from Rod MacKinnon - some headmaster in London - "Muddled thinking is guaranteeing failure for the noble aspirations we all commonly hold for the education of the young." Good man, good sentiment.

Onto my last educational problem: idiots. Of course there are going to be idiots who think that any kind of schooling which encourages safety is a bad thing. That's just a part of living in a society which allows people to claim £4,000 a month in benefits for an adopted son with learning difficulties, whom they then torture and dismember when his benefits stop. I'm afraid we live in a country so devoid of collective morals that we cannot muster a counter-argument for lunacy. There is simply no words to describe how you could be so stupid.

The Law

We're in a bind, humanity. Well, Britainality. We've come too far down the line. We took too long in legalising homosexual-intercourse, and we took way too fucking long in bringing the age of consent down to 16. Oh, and then way, way too fucking long bringing the age of homosexual-consent down to 16. Then again, in America you can legally fuck an animal in 20 states, but only marry someone of the same gender in 6. If you don't believe me go look it up. The world amazes, ever so often. Our Europhile counterparts are all flourishing under the success of their lowered age of consent. With lowered age of consent comes earlier education. I do not advocate the 'start at 5' policy which has been bandied around -- but there is definitely scope for bringing the age of education down to 8 or 9 or something. That isn't too early, and just because a child cannot fully understand that which they are hearing, their interest will at least be sparked so as to enable them to later fully engage with the material. Lowest rates of PTF are, I think, in Scandinavia. They seem to have everything over there, even S.A.D. And that shit is great, I swear. They have consistently applied a policy of reason and logic to the education of their children; and thus their laws reflect this. We waited too long, Britain, now we have to educate against the current of sense. A well placed pebble could, hypothetically, alter the course of an entire river -- an insurmountable task, but not an impossible one.

Am I for changing the law? Yes. Because I'm an Eddie Izzard follower 'revolutionary liberal' ('we'll kick down the doors of the House, but we'll pay for the damage' or something). I am all for revolutionizing that which has become stoic, and that which has proven to be unhelpful (or even actively against what we want). Just because it's going to be an incredible fight doesn't mean we shouldn't take it on. Then again, I'm emigrating in just over a year so I don't really give a shit what we do. We're already fucked. It's all platitude, but the platitude has levelled to reality.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN

I hate this patronising view that children cannot learn things. I hate this condescending to the next generation that they are too emotionally immature. What does that even fucking mean? I can make arbitrary rulings too, ya know, but they don't mean anything. Put some investment in your words, please folks. Children are fully capable of adopting new regiments of education, and that is why I preach the systematic application of logic, reason, dictate of learned justification. Come on, cunts, it's not a difficult concept. If I ask for consistency, all you can rejoin is that you are at least consistent in your inconsistency. I agree with the guy I quoted earlier, there is scope for righting this wrong. Stop trying to make our children minions of multiculturalism: these are societal constructs, norms, adoptive morals -- they are not for our schools to teach, because they cannot be imparted through words or actions alone. Whilst we berate our children for not being tolerant we are forgetting to make sure they are fully equipped to deal with the real world. Is that not what we the propaganda is trying to make us believe? Is that not the fundamental point behind ridiculous concepts such as PSHE? Is it not preparation for a world full of hate, loathing, voiceless desire? I don't want my child to learn to darn, when he doesn't know how to put a condom on properly.

What they need to know

Things that are missing from sex-ed, at least when I did it, were numerous. Bearing that in mind, let me just try to think of the more salient things that must be taught to children. Speaking of that, maybe I should become a hypocrite: I'm against most forms of standardized testing, because I think it sets a curve of learning and encourages 'teaching the test' -- the resultant education being in how to absorb pointless information, not apply useful stuff. I could be influenced to change my mind here, however, and yes, I will now actively encourage a test for children in sex-ed. Oh god this sounds like incitement to perversion. Let me rephrase: we should make sure children can apply this knowledge. Nope, that doesn't sound any better. Let me try again: when we have taught the lessons, we should make sure they understand it? Fuck it. No test. It's just going to be a paedo paradise. Forgive me. I will still be a bastion of liberalism.

So. Just a quick run down of what they need to know:

1) How to use different methods of contraception. Not just condoms. Female-condoms, IUD (intrauterine), the injection, the pill, minipill, IUS (intrauterine), diaphragm, etc.. They should also be taught that the pill + condom = safest method.

2) What diseases can be transmitted through sex. Not hard to teach. Kids love icky pictures.

3) How to prevent these diseases.

4) What can happen if you or the product fails (babies, abortions, morning-after pill, etc.).

5) Emotional side-effects.

That's not a hard list to cover is it. Ethically it's not even supererogatory, it's simply necessary. Go fucking figure that this kind of thing is ignored.

That is what I have to say on PTF. I think there are solutions. Cohesion, people. I plead for sanity.