AWARE Sex Guide Suspended

[scroobal]

Being cautious does not equate to conservative values on sex. I wager that conservatives values will forbid any talk of homosexuality, pre-marital sex, or any sexual practices that does not conform to Edwardian values.

Cautious means bringing it all out. Have discussions and debates. But do not make statements that may not be true or generally not accepted by science. The 80/20 rules would cover most topics that benefits all students with no arguments. Things like protection, not coerced into having sex etc.

I think the kids of today will laugh behind our backs if we tell them that pre-marital sex is not advised. The approach is to teach them to value oneself and how to go about doing it. It matters little to me if it is between same or opposite sex.

Simply and bluntly put - have all the sex you want but don't get labelled a slut or a manwhore, end up with STD, unwanted pregnancies or unexpected fatherhood at a young age. All that sex should also not affect you as you progress thru school and life.

I am pretty sure most Singaporeans would feel that way at least privately.

I think this is really the centre of the issue--what do we teach to impressionable young minds.

If we are going to be cautious with them, that means that we are to teach them the conservative values to sex and sexuality, right? Even if we really think gay sexuality is "neutral" or even "normal", we are not supposed to say so.

From what I recall of my own early learning about sexuality (not necessarily in school), I have barely changed my attitudes to this day. In fact, sometimes I find that even if intellectually I think something is okay and I accept certain behaviours in others, I don't accept it in myself. The old training comes back to negate it, to make it impossible for me to stray from those early set parameters of sexual behaviour.

So what we are really saying is that we should mould these impressionable young minds in such a way that they will grow up to be conservative in their sexual attitudes. What we are really saying is 'let's use sex education to produce a certain type of Singapore adult". What right do we have to do this?

This is my problem with the parents who successfully managed to halt use of AWARE's sexuality programme through signing a petition. There has always been an opt out form. As parents, they could use this to remove their kids from access to the AWARE programme or any other sex ed programme. So why did they sign a petition for MOE to take off the programme? Their motive had nothing to do with concern over their own kids' education. They wanted to impose their views and will on other parents and other kids. This was about shaping society.

MOE was wrong to give in to them. It should have just reminded them of the opt out form. It should also have given more details about all the various sex ed programmes so parents can make informed decisions.

What we got here is a group of local parents (largely with limited education, and bible thumpers who quote from the Old Testament) deciding how Singapore kids should grow up, what sex and gender ideologies they should be taught. They took precedence over MOE and our ELECTED leaders, the people we selected to represent our interests.

On the whole, having thought this issue through, I think we should not have sex ed in schools (except for maybe the basic minimum to cover STDs and safe sex practices. It should be done in biology or health science classes as it was done for me.) If kids want to know more about sexuality, refer them to their parents, and give them some good book titles and other resoources. Leave them to decide for themselves, just as all of us did, and to be continuallly educated in sex throughout their lives--rather than have it stuffed into them when they are impressionable young kids.

 

[scroobal]

Its really funny that Li Ann through out her life during tertiary education and academia tended to focus on human rights and in particular minority rights. It was no surprise that she lectures on constitutional law.

you know about Li Ann...it is a pity about her apparent religious fundamentalism and homophobia because she is not a bad egg and very much the liberal on most other matters...also a razor sharp mind...oh well what to do...

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

In the past the greatest distance between God and me was pre-marital sex. I've decided to endure to the day I marry

Popstar F4 Van Ness Wu on abstinence:p

I think the kids of today will laugh behind our backs if we tell them that pre-marital sex is not advised. The approach is to teach them to value oneself and how to go about doing it. It matters little to me if it is between same or opposite sex.

Simply and bluntly put - have all the sex you want but don't get labelled a slut or a manwhore, end up with STD, unwanted pregnancies or unexpected fatherhood at a young age. All that sex should also not affect you as you progress thru school and life.

I am pretty sure most Singaporeans would feel that way at least privately.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

perhaps something interesting possibly happened when she was Oxford...a sort of epiphany?

Its really funny that Li Ann through out her life during tertiary education and academia tended to focus on human rights and in particular minority rights. It was no surprise that she lectures on constitutional law.

 

[scroobal]

I recall that she did indicate somewhere that she heard the voice of god while in Oxford and that led to conversion and the rest of the family.

perhaps something interesting possibly happened when she was Oxford...a sort of epiphany?

 

[bellepepper02]

i guess it appears quite paradoxical...not really sure how she squares her belief system with Mill but in my few chats with her on the apparent local illiberal democractic system, she seemd to give me the impression that she was quite open to freedoms of speech and assembly...perhaps li ann takes a very narrow constrictive approach to the "harm principle"???...

but i can tell you one thing...if you want some entertainment...another way to push li ann's button is to get her talking about say Harry Potter or the tv show "Charmed" about the sisters who are witches

I can't fathom why conservative Christians get their knickers in a twist over magic and fantasy. Apparently, schools and publishers carefully vet their children's books against witches and warlocks so as not to raise the ire of these naysayers.

Open to freedoms of speech and assembly? Then how could she approve her mother's scheme to take over someone else's organisation instead of advising her to start one of her own?

Her speech on homosexuality given in Parliament was supremely contemptuous of some of her fellow-citizens and highly intolerant of other viewpoints. I have never heard anything as fascist as that coming from any other local politician in our history.

Mother and daughter should consider why they have invited death threats. Time for them to think about the oppressive nature of their dirty politics.

I reckon Li Ann is about as liberal as her mother is feminist...

 

[bellepepper02]

Being cautious does not equate to conservative values on sex. I wager that conservatives values will forbid any talk of homosexuality, pre-marital sex, or any sexual practices that does not conform to Edwardian values.

Cautious means bringing it all out. Have discussions and debates. But do not make statements that may not be true or generally not accepted by science. The 80/20 rules would cover most topics that benefits all students with no arguments. Things like protection, not coerced into having sex etc.

I think the kids of today will laugh behind our backs if we tell them that pre-marital sex is not advised. The approach is to teach them to value oneself and how to go about doing it. It matters little to me if it is between same or opposite sex.

Simply and bluntly put - have all the sex you want but don't get labelled a slut or a manwhore, end up with STD, unwanted pregnancies or unexpected fatherhood at a young age. All that sex should also not affect you as you progress thru school and life.

I am pretty sure most Singaporeans would feel that way at least privately.

Scroobal, that may be what you take caution to mean. But I suspect MOE is going to respond by taking the conservative tack.

What you're suggesting is quite interesting. Perhaps sexuality discussions should be conducted in moral/civics lessons in the way that you've outlined, ie. throwing up topics for discussion, set some projects and let the kids do their own thinking for themselves, with teachers merely being facilitators rather than instructors. Rather like the way sexuality issues are discussed in GP at JC level. Except, of course, one of the COOS guys did complain about even this. Thankfully, MOE told him where to get off.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

aiyah that is why i said li ann is paradoxical:p...

as an aside can't remember where you raised the issue of Singgies being selfish and self centred but i just recalled reading this statement from a singgie on the Aware saga which seems to support your view

Eleanor Tee - I've been most nauseated by the news on the Aware saga. ST has given front-page coverage again and again to what is essentially a parochial affair. I'm really relieved the whole thing is over. There are other more important bread and butter life and death issues to report. Just ask the folk in the coffee shop: 'What Aware? Who cares! These are rich women's antics, they don't benefit me one bit"[/B]

I tell you Singgies deserve the PAPs

Open to freedoms of speech and assembly? Then how could she approve her mother's scheme to take over someone else's organisation instead of advising her to start one of her own?

Her speech on homosexuality given in Parliament was supremely contemptuous of some of her fellow-citizens and highly intolerant of other viewpoints. I have never heard anything as fascist as that coming from any other local politician in our history.

Mother and daughter should consider why they have invited death threats. Time for them to think about the oppressive nature of their dirty politics.

I reckon Li Ann is about as liberal as her mother is feminist...

 

[scroobal]

I sincerely hope not. I know that old man's u-turn on homosexuality did not go well with the PAP cadres.

Scroobal, that may be what you take caution to mean. But I suspect MOE is going to respond by taking the conservative tack.

I say that, knowing that Singaporeans kids are rather bright and quite worldly having seen movies, access to internet and having pretty much well educated parents. The majority can reason and rationalise without old codgers putting their outdated scruples in their way.

The danger is when no discussion takes places especially on taboo subjects. Discussion will also lead to kids being made aware of help and support groups.

What you're suggesting is quite interesting. Perhaps sexuality discussions should be conducted in moral/civics lessons in the way that you've outlined, ie. throwing up topics for discussion, set some projects and let the kids do their own thinking for themselves, with teachers merely being facilitators rather than instructors. Rather like the way sexuality issues are discussed in GP at JC level. Except, of course, one of the COOS guys did complain about even this. Thankfully, MOE told him where to get off.

 

[bellepepper02]

I recall that she did indicate somewhere that she heard the voice of god while in Oxford and that led to conversion and the rest of the family.

Unlike straight men, straight women don't generally get ballistic about homosexuality.We just find it intriguing and maybe weird, and feel sorry for the person. Have you ever heard a woman being intense on the subject of homosexuality?

There's a personal angle here somewhere.

 

[scroobal]

Thats interesting. Come to think of it, have not heard of female acquintances or family members going bonkers over it. I wonder if men perceive it as an attack on their manhood, king of jungle, stud angle.

Now you tweaked my curiosity.

Unlike straight men, straight women don't generally get ballistic about homosexuality.We just find it intriguing and maybe weird, and feel sorry for the person. Have you ever heard a woman being intense on the subject of homosexuality?

There's a personal angle here somewhere.

 

[denzuko1]

The Senior Minister's comment has only one conclusion: There is a serious issue in MOE. In either way, he has painted his own ministry in bad light.

If the Aware program is indeed not following the guideline and has been promoting Homosexuality agenda, why has the auditors from MOE spotted the flaw? Unless of course there is no clearly define guideline in MOE itself on Sexual Education and they adopted the " no complaint, keep quiet" behaviour. Thus it is ultimately the fault of MOE that this program is out.

The way I see it, the 180 Degree turn of MOE only demonstrated an establishment lacking in firmness in its principle. It does not even have confidence that programs under its umbrella are academically sound. It is so easily swayed by simple objections (probably one letter would do the job). So if I log a complaint that the Secondary History syllabus is flaws simply because it only protrays Singapore history and thus making Singaporeans ignorance over world history, I guess the Garment will likely to suspend History.

 

[bellepepper02]

as an aside can't remember where you raised the issue of Singgies being selfish and self centred but i just recalled reading this statement from a singgie on the Aware saga which seems to support your view

Eleanor Tee - I've been most nauseated by the news on the Aware saga. ST has given front-page coverage again and again to what is essentially a parochial affair. I'm really relieved the whole thing is over. There are other more important bread and butter life and death issues to report. Just ask the folk in the coffee shop: 'What Aware? Who cares! These are rich women's antics, they don't benefit me one bit"[/B]

I tell you Singgies deserve the PAPs

I am nauseated by Eleanor Tee!

 

[bellepepper02]

Thats interesting. Come to think of it, have not heard of female acquintances or family members going bonkers over it. I wonder if men perceive it as an attack on their manhood, king of jungle, stud angle.

Now you tweaked my curiosity.

One of the advantages of being a woman is that patriarchal society doesn't care much about us. So, for the most part, women have more space, especially within modernity, to be whoever they want to be. Unless patriarchal women like the Thios or abusive husbands/fathers/brothers (harbingers from pre-modern times) decide to land on us.

Men on the other hand are subject to a lot of pressures about masculinity. These norms are fixed by society, and we tend to think that society's welfare turns on our men being 'men'.

That's why I said that gender and sexuality are related. Homosexuality tends to disturb and interrogate fixed social (heterosexual) norms of masculinity. For eg, in the homosexual regime, men's roles are not linked to their roles as fathers, as producers of families, as providers, etc. Women's roles too are not seen as involving subservience to men. So, it upsets the patriarchal apple cart.

Actually a lot has been written on heterosexual men's homophobia and the cultural causes of this. Might help to google "heterosexuality regime".

 

[LonewolfAlfa]

who here actually has kids?

 

[denzuko1]

who here actually has kids?

What you want to do now? Try telling others how to educate their kids? Or whether they even have the rights to argue on the matter?

 

[mercbenz]

A bit out of topic, but can one screw a lesbo so good until she is converted? Same goes for gay man. What if a gay man receive a mind blowing blow job from a girl? Will that change his mind?

I really don't understand the need to play with another's while one have the same thing growing from him/herself.

Making homosexual ism sound normal is not right, education should highlight the existence of homosexuality but not give it a green light.

 

[LonewolfAlfa]

What you want to do now? Try telling others how to educate their kids? Or whether they even have the rights to argue on the matter?

cannot ask? u have kids?

 

[cleareyes]

I sincerely hope not. I know that old man's u-turn on homosexuality did not go well with the PAP cadres.

That would include Thio Su Mein herself.

She had been warned not to carried out what she did but she ignored it. ( A certain minister had met her after the AWARE takeover). Soon she will have to face the wrath of her disobediance.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

i suggest they all sit through a screening of 'Philadelphia' starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington for starters...but a big no to 'Caligula'...don't want to give any of the mary whitehouse/thio su mien gang a heart attack

I sincerely hope not. I know that old man's u-turn on homosexuality did not go well with the PAP cadres.



I say that, knowing that Singaporeans kids are rather bright and quite worldly having seen movies, access to internet and having pretty much well educated parents. The majority can reason and rationalise without old codgers putting their outdated scruples in their way.

The danger is when no discussion takes places especially on taboo subjects. Discussion will also lead to kids being made aware of help and support groups.