Jump to content

Education


Cole Parker

Recommended Posts

I don't get it, you mean girls are distracting? Of course they are, and by design.

Adults sexualize young girls at every opportunity. Clothing designed for girls is optimized to show off cleavage and behinds. The image of women in the media is sexy, have you seen MTV lately? Women are sex objects, all by design of adults who stand to profit. Is it any wonder that adolescent boys have become mindless drooling fools in the presence of the female of the species.

It is unfortunate that girls buy into all this crap, but they seem to enjoy the power it gives them. Bad behavior is rewarded when parents purchase the trappings that allow their young children to play the sex role so immodestly. I would venture that girls are brainwashed into assuming a sexy image just to become accepted by peers.

Boys had their chance when they wore tight clothing, but that is gone. Now they wear pants with enough fabric to clothe an entire primitive tribe. So let's segregate the sexes because we all know that if boys look at girls nothing good will come of that. They will have to depend on internet porn and develop indecent fantasies as an outlet...unless they are gay and then it doesn't matter.

Let's start a rumor that segregating boys will make them all gay. Then watch the conservative voices trip over one another demanding we prevent segregating the schools. Seriously...just a thought. :lol:

Link to comment

And then there's the view that English boarding schools are rife with homosexuals because the boys have no other outlets for their lusts. Yet that doesn't jibe with the other view that these schools do an extraordinarily fine job of educating these boys.

So let me get this straight, if I can use that term here. The boys in same sex surroundings are distracted by the comely wiles of other boys, yet do a magnificent job learning the curriculum. Throw girls into the fray and the same distraction occurs but the boys don't learn anything but how to watch the girls?

I don't get it.

Link to comment

It is a fact that girls mature much faster than boys, ergo it seems rather logical that you segregate classes to avoid embarrassment. As the rest of the curriculum doesn't seem to be segregated I can't see the problem.

We need EleCivil's view of this.

I agree. :smile:

Link to comment

One of the somewhat astonishing customs, sometimes mandatory, is the share rooms in colleges in the U.S. (also applies to the British boarding schools.) Two guys in college share a room during the most formative period of their teenage years and yet they don't all exit those years as homosexuals. That's not to say that a lot of experimentation and lasciviousness doesn't happen; in fact, I'm fairly certain they do occur.

Of course, the real reason for the emphasis on sport and physical activity in college is to make the students so exhausted that they will not have the stamina to pursue any physical sexual temptations that exist in the share accommodations. Whoever thinks that, doesn't really understand the reserve powers of youth.

It also has to be stated that the sexualisation of the female is based on the false premise that the males are naturally attracted to the females.

In nature, we generally find that it is the male who attracts the female. So it's not by design that girls are distracting, as much as it is that they are the ones who are attracted to the boys.

Indeed, the spirit of competition, amongst the girls, to win the favour of the boys , is evidenced by their constant desire to acquire; whether that be a boyfriend, or some new item of apparel. Such apparel being designed to catch the eye of the boys; the boys to whom, the girls are already attracted. Our cultures have persuaded our females into believing that they attract men by clothing themselves in certain ways. What they overlook is the fact that males are always aroused by anything that activates their libido, and that requires no clothes at all, or merely the hint of another person being attracted to them.

Seeing another man in an aroused state will initiate similar feelings in other males. That doesn't make those guys gay. It may well increase curiosity, but most commonly, particularly amongst the religiously indoctrinated, it will cause them to reject their own natural reactions to the sight of another man's erection. Condemnation of homosexuality will usually follow in those who find themselves so aroused, simply because they have no ability to understand the narcisstic trigger mechanism of their own libido and its satisfaction.

Satisfaction for the other person, by someone who knows the joy of giving such satisfaction is part of our discovery of what it means to be human. Moreover it is the source of compassion and can express itself in a sexual act celebrating life and love. The way we dress it up is contained in the customs and beliefs of our cultures.

Unfortunately religious and moral beliefs contaminate the purity of such expressions of love, by insisting on interfering with our natural affection for each other regardless of gender identity or sexuality.

Link to comment

Two guys in college share a room during the most formative period of their teenage years and yet they don't all exit those years as homosexuals. That's not to say that a lot of experimentation and lasciviousness doesn't happen; in fact, I'm fairly certain they do occur.

That's how we got pRick "Rooster" Scrotorum. Word has it he was a drunk and a party boy in college until something happened...

Link to comment

We need EleCivil's view of this.

From the article:

"These programs are poorly designed and based on pseudoscience and stereotypes that do nothing to enhance learning, and only reinforce discredited ideas about how boys and girls behave."

There.

Oh, okay, I won't leave it at that. Haha.

There are a few single-gender public schools in my area. They're not really different from the co-ed schools. That is to say, the state has labeled them all as being in "Academic Emergency" (The lowest of six possible categories). Now, this isn't surprising - these are city schools, and all the city schools are dropout factories. The rich suburban schools across the street from the city schools are rated "Excellent" and "Excellent with Distinction", again, regardless of whether they're single-gendered or co-ed.

Single-gendered schools are another attempt at finding a magic bullet to fix education - something we can implement that won't cost anything but will somehow fix everything. It doesn't exist. The problem is systemic, and it goes much deeper than what goes on in a school building.

Just for fun, here's some more magic bullets that sound good, but change nothing:

"Open Classrooms"

Multi-sensory education

Scripted curriculum

Student-driven curriculum

Data-driven curriculum

Constructivism

Anti-Constructivism

Post-Constructivism

Anti-Post-Constructivism (And so forth - I could keep doing this for another three generations)

Service learning

Blended learning

Charter schools

School vouchers

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...