D
dallas_r
Guest
True. Us Catholics need to stop bowing down to heretics and homosexuals and turn the Church around before it is too late.
- Status
N
nodito
Guest
Maybe. I also feel like there’s a tendency in our culture today to take something profane and call it “art” or “education” when really it’s just smut. I could easily envision some enlightened professor somewhere taking a cheap pornographic film and developing a college course in which students analyze the skill of the director and the contribution of the genre to women’s liberation. At the end of the day, it’s still a cheap pornographic film and there are better ways to learn about film-making and sociology than by studying junk.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Yea, it’s a lot of capitulation on issues, like they are trying to see how fine they can ride the line on everything. As Ronald Raegan so wisely said, if people continue to back and retreat, then finally we have to face the final ultimatum and what then? when we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally and economically?
I normally just separate homosexuals and the sexual acts of homosexuality (sodomy), as people will jump on the lack of that distinction to demonize us and it may cause misunderstanding and hurt for fellow faithful Catholics who are same sex attracted and believe in and follow the Churches teachings.
God Bless You
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
Well, I think that porn producers in the US do actually have their own awards show, similar to the Oscars. I wouldn’t doubt that some professor could turn it into a college course.
J
josh987654321
Guest
Because the ‘classics’ will not get tomorrows youth to support and promote sodomy and same sex marriage.
God Bless
God Bless
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
There’s a lot of straight driving the agenda and a lot of homosexuals who seek to live according to the Church. I’ve seen three posts on here to that effect in the last week.
Just don’t fall for the line that homosexuals must support so-called gay “marriage”. That’s what the idenitarian left and its excuse-making allies want you to do—divide people by groupthink.
Just don’t fall for the line that homosexuals must support so-called gay “marriage”. That’s what the idenitarian left and its excuse-making allies want you to do—divide people by groupthink.
Last edited:
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
What wouldn’t pass for a college class today?
T
Teek
Guest
Apparently an ethics class defending the rights of parents to protect their children from being exposed to sexually explicit material until their physiological development has reached the appropriate age to process that material in a healthy way.
Although I would sign up, if they had one.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
We were shown what drugs look like by our DARE officers, physically and in images. THAT is similar. And I think very useful.
TAKING drugs as an assignment would be similar if the teachers had the students ENGAGE in sex or other inappropriate activities - not just read about it. And not even ‘just reading about it’. But reading a story that uses it as a plot device.
And the difference between teaching theology in a public high school and teaching literature is that the literature has many applications and levels of use. Examining literature teaches students many practical skills, like digesting, thinking about, and then communicating about a subject. It also teaches students the important content of the novels. I would have no problem with a high school teaching a comparative religion course that delves into the theologies of various religions.
These kids are in high school. They know enough about sex to make it dangerous. A little ignorance is a dangerous thing… Knowing just enough that you can totally bungle it all. Students need to learn about this stuff. Because it won’t be long until they’re in college where sex is going to come at them from every angle. Examining sex in a safe setting can mean the difference between a student and a sex offender. Or worse… a sex crime victim.
TAKING drugs as an assignment would be similar if the teachers had the students ENGAGE in sex or other inappropriate activities - not just read about it. And not even ‘just reading about it’. But reading a story that uses it as a plot device.
And the difference between teaching theology in a public high school and teaching literature is that the literature has many applications and levels of use. Examining literature teaches students many practical skills, like digesting, thinking about, and then communicating about a subject. It also teaches students the important content of the novels. I would have no problem with a high school teaching a comparative religion course that delves into the theologies of various religions.
These kids are in high school. They know enough about sex to make it dangerous. A little ignorance is a dangerous thing… Knowing just enough that you can totally bungle it all. Students need to learn about this stuff. Because it won’t be long until they’re in college where sex is going to come at them from every angle. Examining sex in a safe setting can mean the difference between a student and a sex offender. Or worse… a sex crime victim.
Last edited:
J
josh987654321
Guest
A more appropriate analogy would be telling the students where they can buy it, how much it costs, and what drug dealers and users thought about it. I’m sure they presented drugs in a much more negative light in your experience. You really think they are doing the same with something like ‘sodomy’ and ‘masturbation’ for example in todays day and age?
I would not watch a movie with the sort of garbage in it the OP describes, let alone kids and young adults having it sneakily given to them in a book disguised as ‘literature’ study.
Last edited:
R
Rhubarb
Guest
You think In Cold Blood didn’t present sex in a negative light? Read over the content the OP listed. That sounds pretty negative to me.
J
JimG
Guest
After I read Tom Wolfe’s book “I Am Charlotte Simmons,” I thought that maybe it should be required reading for parents of incoming first year college students.
But now I’m thinking that might be too late.
But now I’m thinking that might be too late.
Last edited:
T
Teek
Guest
That may be true about the subject of sexuality. It is painfully erroneous about sexually explicit material.
Sexually explicit material causes a neurological response that can be as addictive as cocaine, according to neuroscience. It is the reason for pornography and other sex addictions.
How do kids get interested in pornography? By being exposed to sexually explicit content, EVEN IN A “SAFE SETTING.” In the adolescent and pre-adolescent mind, the effects are intensified and stimulate the wrong areas of the brain. The memories of these encounters even stimulate different areas of the brain than they do in adults.
Even suggestive sexual material causes arousal, and the curiosity that awakens unnaturally, because for some those desires have not biologically awoken from their physiological development but from an early introduction to the material, in this generation is only one click of a mouse away from graphic, disasterous internet content.
Exposure after the brain reaches sexual maturity causes an entirely different and appropriate, though not necessarily respectful of sexuality and generally objectifying of women, sexual response.
In the case of sexually explicit content, it IS entirely analogous to sampling drugs in the classroom. Just one taste, and they get curious and want more. The effect is described in journals of neurology as being more addictive than cocaine.
And it damages their lives and their futures. Just like drugs. It is irresponsible.
And completely unnecessary. They haven’t even gotten to read many of the great books, the classics, etc. All of which do all of the things you were talking about in your post, without exposing them to things their physiological development is not ready for.
Why would we not want to protect them from sexual addictions as well as drug addictions? Drugs are actually harder to come by.
Last edited:
I have not read all the 135 replies here, so if this is redundant I apologize.
At your daughters age, it’s up to you as a parent to decide what you want her exposed to, I agree.
As for what she was,already exposed to, it’s up to you if you feel inclined to hold them responsible, what thst would entail, and to also weigh the if doing so will help or hurt your daughter in the long run.
I would discuss what was in the book, and use the content as teaching moments in either case. I’m sure you’ve done this already.
At your daughters age, it’s up to you as a parent to decide what you want her exposed to, I agree.
As for what she was,already exposed to, it’s up to you if you feel inclined to hold them responsible, what thst would entail, and to also weigh the if doing so will help or hurt your daughter in the long run.
I would discuss what was in the book, and use the content as teaching moments in either case. I’m sure you’ve done this already.
Last edited:
P
petra22
Guest
And think of the “pictures” painted in the young person’s mind that cannot be erased… Remember the movie Exorcist? My family advised me not to go see it at age 18. I said ‘how was I going to know if it was really evil unless I saw it for myself?’… BIG MISTAKE for me… What does an 18 yr. old know.
N
nodito
Guest
I have learned as an adult that there are a variety of TV shows and movies I should not watch, even those that many would consider mild. I can’t watch Law and Order SVU anymore because the topics are so disturbing. I have all these fears and images from years of TV-viewing that are incredibly difficult to scrub from mind.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Or on the walls of the Sistine Chapel.
Heck, I am still a little confounded that one post above inferred that kids should not read the Bible!
We were homeschooled and encouraged to read the Bible from cover to cover at least once each year. It was a big deal when a child completed their first cover to cover reading of the Bible, it was a reason to celebrate.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
A question for you: when you read the Bible cover to cover as kids, how did you deal with some of the more explicit or violent parts involving sex, rape, gory death, etc? Were you okay with it or did your parents discuss with you?
I didn’t read the Bible cover to cover till I was 13, so while I thought some parts were a bit racy or gross, I wasn’t too bugged by it. I did read as a much younger child some books on Catholic martyrs getting burned to death and the like, which didn’t trouble me as a child but my mother totally freaked out when she read some of the stories and took the books away.
I didn’t read the Bible cover to cover till I was 13, so while I thought some parts were a bit racy or gross, I wasn’t too bugged by it. I did read as a much younger child some books on Catholic martyrs getting burned to death and the like, which didn’t trouble me as a child but my mother totally freaked out when she read some of the stories and took the books away.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
My wife is the same way. She used to love SVU. Then we had kids. Now she can’t watch it. Those elements and images stick with her. Me, I’m a bit more desensitized to all that—for good or ill.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
We discussed them, however, the disturbing parts were also not avoided in sermons (non-Catholic evangelical Christian upbringing). We knew the story of Jael and Deborah and of the stoning of Stephen, we knew that it was sinful to mock God’s anointed like when the teens mocked Elisha. We knew that Noah and his family listened to the cries of the people who were drowning and begging to get into the Ark. All of these and more had been taught, as they are in Scripture, so we could learn of the goodness and mercy and justice of God.
- Status