actually, i think even without orgasm, a hug will generate the kinds of chemical release which they are talking about (oxytocin)

Though i'm sure sex releases a lot more, and probably some vasopressin aswell (my neuro-science isn't really that good, but i'm sure these chemicals are part of the basis for pair-bonding... that i don't think humans 'naturally' pair-bond for life, probably only for a few years at most.)

How much pregnancy would we avert if only people had a basic grasp of the ovulation and menstrual cycles. There should be a mandatory annual ovulation cycle exam for every human being on the globe from the ages of 11-20.

That, and we should have single-sex public education.

In ireland we do, though i think a minority are mixed education until university.

@ Putin

Are you insane??? I've seen what single-sex education does to upper-class types. When they get to university it ain't pretty.

And what does it 'do' to them, pray tell?

Nothing really, but it's a popular myth that the upper classes make complete tits of themselves in the first year of uni due to their lack of experience with the opposite sex combined with an over filled bank account, and I for one am keen for this myth to continue.

In terms of academic success at school exams, it seems that boys benefit from co-ed, and girls from single sex.

I don't think standardized exams are a good way of measuring anything anymore. It's become obvious to me that a number doesn't decide what I do or how I think. I am much, much better at thinking and regurgitating onto paper when I've got time to think things through, thus, I generally do poorly on timed tests. On the other hand, some people can get away with not studying and are just automatic straight-A, 2400 SAT students. That doesn't mean I am smarter than them, but it doesn't mean I'm not, either.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but its hard to think of another way of measuring

Admission rates into universities? I'm sure someone is going to say that that is rigged, and I've not seen any data. Success in careers? Well, attitudes play a big, big role (e.g. with child-rearing) and are going to correlate strongly with type of school, I'd predict...


Maybe creating a different test to do a study with is the best option.

Having two jobs at 16, I can tell you that different careers require different skill sets. Sounds more obvious than it is. If I go into the field I expect I am going into, I am going to make enough money to just barely squeak past food stamp qualification. At the same time, people around me, simply because of the name on their degree, will have much better career salaries, probably retire much sooner, and probably marry off into a rich family and have rich kids too. I don't find it arrogant to say that I'm smarter than about 90% of my class because that's what my standardized test scores say. In my school, on the other hand, I'm in the 40th percentile in my lowest topic (most are in the 70-80 range) yet my grades in the class I take on that subject are As and high Bs taking courses two years ahead of the "norm." It's because effort and thought out answers outweigh the right answers in my classes, while on tests they really don't care.

I'd say get rid of tests if kids didn't grade grub like they do today with parental support, leading to absurd grade inflation which makes any metric not based on tests useless.

Maybe we should tell parents to stop telling teachers to babysit their kids for the day then. School doesn't end at home, believe it or not. Parents are much, much more responsible for their child's academic future than teachers are.

Well parents don't see it that way. It's the McDonalds model of education. Everything is customer service. You see this especially at the college level. Kids think because they pay tuition they're entitled to an A and a degree. We're just here to give them their happy meals.

And then of course you have student 'evaluations' whereby the students get to bitch anonymously about what quality 'service' they received. And people wonder why other generations think we feel entitled.

I'm a kid speaking for one kid on the planet (me) when I say I can't believe our teachers are treated as horribly as they are. The salaries alone make my point obvious. I know a family of four in North Carolina. Both parents work in a toilet paper factory. They make toilet paper. They make more than the average teacher. I don't know how that's logical.

Of course, it's no better because of what you stated, Putin. People expect to be served. Education is something that should be earned. Children aren't born stupid but they can grow up lazy. Nobody is stupid by anything more than their own will. People should understand that.

"Children aren't born stupid"

Sounds like the 'right' thing to say, but I'm not at all convinced by this until you present some evidence. I read, a long time ago, about an adopted twin study that suggested that special abilities and weaknesses in particular areas are hereditary, which lends weight to the idea that people aren't all born with equal academic potential any more than physical traits are the same

Putin - out of interest why do you think that boys and girls should be educated seperately?

Because of the natural tendency of boys to speak over girls in classrooms, or really of the natural tendency of men to speak over women anywhere. I feel like an all girls environment allows more opportunities for girls to speak up and participate, and also study subjects that are "traditionally" male. Ditto for boys and feeling less "ashamed" to study subjects where girls predominate.

Also I think it cuts out a lot of unnecessary distractions to learning in general. No macho posturing from the boys and such to impress the girls at school.

Of course people here live in countries where single-sex education is more common, so I'm wondering what you think.

I'd like to posit a question without you assuming I'm criticising you. I appreciate your view point...

but...I would question whether seperating males and females from each other is the best way to deal with gender relations? Might excluding them from each other only exacerbate the problems you describe between males and females, rather than give them any chance or opportunity to improve interaction?

Well, my aspiration is that young women enter university fully confident and interested in subjects such as math & science, and feel confident in their ability to speak up with their opinions. I feel like having that kind of practice throughout middle & high school isn't going to make them suddenly fearful once they get to university, since they will be more mature. But when you're young, you're more inclined to defer to the outspoken types and feel less confident in your abilities. And if you get into that habit, it's going to harder to break at the higher levels.

Maybe this is not how it happens in practice, but I feel like a young woman studying physics at university, who has spent several years in high school confidently answering questions about this topic and giving her opinions, isn't suddenly going to back down once she reaches university.

I don't think single sex schooling for females particularily helps dispell the tendancy of females to choose less science.

At least in Ireland...

I think it is more deeppy engrained in culture, the idea that you can't get any job using those skills turns people off learning them...

Based on my sisters experience and my experience at single sex schools, single-sex education means that the girls get worse teachers in maths and science.

"The easiest way of being sure that sex is not mis-used in relationships, and that it is a true expression of self-giving love, is for a couple to wait until after they are married."

Ha ha ha ha ha. I was willing to give this page the benefit of the doubt until I read that. If a couple is committed enough to want to get married, it doesn't matter whether they are or aren't married when they do it. And if everyone has to wait until they're married to do it, you're only going to get more people to marry that shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Divorce would only go up, and by a lot.

Putin33: I was under the impression that you were quite liberal. Now I read you say that "There should be a mandatory annual ovulation cycle exam for every human being on the globe from the ages of 11-20." And you're advocating for separation of the sexes in the school system. Are you serious?

I agree with JECE. Marriage is massively over rated anyway. Sure, it suits some people, but I never plan on getting married.

(And Putin isn't liberal at all, he just has views which differ from the US mainstream right, which makes him seem liberal in some debates on here)

Well, the forum rotates between claiming I'm a dogmatic Marxist to now claiming that I'm a conservative, let me know when you have it figured out.

I'm not quite sure what I've read in the last fifteen minutes, but I am more than sure that I've nothing productive to add. Chips and vinegar served.

"Well, the forum rotates between claiming I'm a dogmatic Marxist to now claiming that I'm a conservative, let me know when you have it figured out."

Nazi? :P

Jamiet99uk: Interesting analysis of Putin33, ha ha.

@tgm, no if putin was a Nationalist and a Socialist then he'd be a Nazi.

He's a Conservative and a Marxist, so he's clearly a Communist!

@orathaic

Don't try saying that the Nazis were socialist. They were right wing, you see, so can't possibly be!

Surely Conservative and Marxist = Soviet most closely?

I wasn't seriously comparing political philosophies, i was mostly playing on words... Even if that's where the word Nazi came from... You can be right wing socialists.

...and then we're talking about what "right wing" means, which is just stupid.