recently, the Family Life society of Singapore has been going to schools around giving sexuality talks to schools. of course, anderson junior college was not missed out on. However, there has been a number of factual errors that have generated quite a controversy in the local youth population, as can be seen in several blogs that have debunked the workshop and exposed their underlying motives for such a 'sex talk'.
In the forthcoming text, i shall attempt to explain for my disagreement with the whole workshop. however, it is not an exhaustive list; it only evaluates the points i felt more strongly against.
The underlying rationale for my absence was the clashing of values between what was strongly being advocated and what belonged solely to me, and which had been laid down as the only moral value I would adhere to since some time ago. The speaker spoke in such a way that, his values that were imparted were the only way to go about in life. His presentation style clearly showed a lack of openness and scope in life and the impression I got was quite a negative one, as if his values were forced down my throat.
Though there was no explicit mention of a God, I believe that his views were formulated in accordance with a religious dogma. Being a firm believer in atheism, it is only to be expected that I took his views with offence. Even without the tainting of religious elements, still I did not agree with much of the content of the booklet that was issued. Hence, subsequent text shall examine the flaws in the booklet and programme that need a serious rethinking.
Firstly, the introduction of the programme is that it will help participants achieve their ‘destiny to be fully alive and truly human’. Does this indicate that before this workshop, all participants were alive only in part and parts of us were ‘fake’, if it claims to help us be ‘true’? I can only frown upon such an expression, as I feel that I already have been as alive as I possibly could have been up to this point in my human life and apart from my antisocial tendencies, I am truly and fully human. Even if I were not, I did not appreciate the idea of someone intruding into my life and trying to infuse foreign sentiments without prior notice. All I was told was that we were to be present at a sexuality workshop. The school should have informed us more thoroughly what was to be expected there, and whether we would be allowed to leave should we find ourselves uncomfortable with the content being delivered. The major part of the ‘sexuality workshop’ dealt with our human experience. Perhaps I am speaking with too much arrogance for a young adolescent, but I feel that it is useless to go through the human experience without having been through it at all, especially since this ‘experience’ would almost definitely differ from individual to individual. That was why I felt that parts of the presentation were irrelevant to me.
Secondly, the goal-setting page conflicted with my personal beliefs yet again. To illustrate the effectiveness and necessity of goal-setting, the presenter quoted statistics from the UK, that people who set goals in terms of occupation earned up to seven times on average then those who did not. The hapless student can only be intimidated by it, and be shaken into filling up the page. However, I resisted that, as I do not believe in goal setting for my life. If I were to set goals for my life, I would have to ensure that all my actions will lead to those goals being closer to attainment. Would I be happy then? To work only because I want to achieve my goal and not because I sincerely want to work for other reasons? Clearly, I do not enjoy being dictated by even my own objectives; my character is that of a volatile one in which my aims of today will differ from those of tomorrow. Hence the futility in setting goals. Also, the next page is on the expectations from my future marriage. Somewhat I shall not attempt to evaluate the completely flawed logic in that, for the word to summarise it all would be ‘delusional’, and somewhat far-fetched.
Thirdly, I disagree with the three fundamental experiences of every human being. The way in which they teach us about the three topics is in a way where we are to read what is imposed there and hence in some way we are to agree with it even if we do not due to the structural form of the sentences there. The theme of personhood affects me the most. My personal opinion of how life should be is that of non mihi solum. Perhaps these three words do not convey my beliefs in great-enough depth, but I certainly believe that I live my life for others around me. Hence, I feel that I should tear apart that page from the booklet, as it emphasises the value of the self. The last line of that page relates to feeling lonely. Alternatively, it seems to be pushing us for getting into a relationship at this point in our lives. When I read that, I would feel that I am a ‘despo’, a person desperate for companionship, a girlfriend. I currently offer no comments for such an encouragement. These three main reasons are sufficient to persuade you that this workshop should never be recommended for any other future generations of our school students. It does not take into consideration the privacy of one’s beliefs and is an infestation upon our current accepted beliefs. The hijacking of one’s values, though unintended would only breed animosity in those who are aware of the true value of the self. For those who are unaware, they may end up as a uniform species when it comes to relating about the meaning of life. This homogenous composition in the student population would then lead to widespread intolerable and insufferable ramifications.
-12:11 PM-
IDIOT.