Proposed K-12 Sex Ed Program Outraging Parents

[Ninmast]

The school board in Montana is pushing for a new curriculum that will be teaching children as young as Kindergarten and First Grade that it's okay, and even expected, to be in gay relationships, as young as Fifth grade about all the different types of "intercourse" (oral, standard, anal, etcetera) and teaching Seventh Grade that it's their personal right to abort babies, which are nothing but an inconvenience, apparently, and not real people. High school students will be taught about erotic art and some bull about how it's society expressing a desire to help or some nonsense.

Full Story Here

And so help me, EJP, Subtle, if you two can't take this matter seriously and post in a mature fashion, you'd better not post at all.

[EJP]

Now then, to be on topic since this MAY effect me in some way (I have a cousin who will be entering Kindergarten in......... what age do kids enter Kindergarten? Not joking I don't know.... anyway a few years.) First off, I don't think kids would understand any romantic relationship until at least the 2nd grade. Even then all relationships of the sort would be considered taboo to them. As for the erotic art, well.... it depends on what you find erotic. If people just have to be naked then that's ok I guess. I know while I was "studying" (Get your mind out of the gutter, I did that because I wasn't studying) art through grade school (3rd-6th) a few nude paintings showed up (I remember a handful of them during 4th grade) and aside from a few giggles here and there no one had an issue with it... to my knowledge anyway. However if the erotic art is on the level of soft core porn, I still think that would be ok. Then again not everyone knows what soft core porn is but... well... it's kinda what you see in the movies (No entering and exiting, just bumping). Again, erotic art in high school is nothing new really. If my ceramics class in high school had a bigger budget (F****** Enron) and maybe less stoners my teacher said who would have attempted to get a nude model and teach us sculpting. Although without it someone made a bust of a female's head and her bust that the school put on display for a long time. It had no nipples but they were sizeable in proportion to the head from what I remember. On another note, I was given "the talk" by my school back in the 6th grade and from what I remember, I seemed to be one of the few who didn't already know about sex. Anyway, my overall though on this is that the information is already out there (and them some) for any kid to find. The information is even easier to find with the internet as it is today. So my thought is this, would you rather your kid find out and learn that stuff on their own or should they learn it in a control environment? I remember when my 6th grade class had "the talk" just about none of the males and females were talking to each other that day. Of course they said we were not allowed to talk about it. Although one of the girls from the class just burst out in discuss at the males at first sight of us and was hauled off by a teacher during lunch (yeah... nothing like your first sex ed class right before lunch).

[Ninmast]

You know how I'd rather my kid learn? From me, their parent. And I find it hard to believe that even you wouldn't have problems with first-graders (five and six year olds) being taught about ANY kind of sexual relationships. And frankly, I for one do not want a government that can't even get its own morals right telling my kids that I am trying to raise up in the way they should go what is right and wrong.

[This One]

What is it with America's sudden dependence on the government? Socialism. Socialism everywhere. Vietnam was for no reason, man.

It's never good when the government decides what's right and wrong, especially when dealing with morals. Never. That's when we start losing freedoms.

[Silva]

Jul 14, 2010 21:44:34 GMT -5 This One said:

It's never good when the government decides what's right and wrong, especially when dealing with morals. Never. That's when we start losing freedoms.

I actually agree with you on this, but I am going to remember it in case you make any argument in favor of censorship.

I'm not going to talk about the issue itself, not only to save me the embarrassment, but because it's not that much of an issue to begin with. It's just a proposed plan, which means it's not actually being practiced, and likely will not be because of all the outrage. Even then it's just one tiny little school in the tiny little capitol of Montana, which has a tiny little population. It's not like this is already widespread across the nation or anything, and don't get me started on the "snowball effect".

[Ninmast]

Actually, it's for an entire district, has been approved by the school board and is very close to being confirmed. Other states are trying to push similar, though usually somewhat less confrontational, curriculums and Massachusetts is trying to force actual CONDOMS on Kindergarteners and first-graders.

STARNES: Sean, we have gotten hundreds of e-mails at Fox News Radio. And it's not just happening in Montana. Reports coming out of Oregon, from Massachusetts, of course, where they had that incident a few weeks ago, where you had a grade school that was going to give condoms to kindergarten and first-grade students, even if their parents objected. Even if they objected.

To tell yourself that it's just one little anomaly that will never actually happen and is just stuff being stirred up, Silva, is to stick your head in the ground and deny the reality of the situation.

[Silva]

Or you could blow something completely out of proportion... I guess it depends on how you look at it.

[Ninmast]

I would rather overreact to a little thing and see it never amount to anything than not respond at all and see my children suffer for my inaction.

[Silva]

Since when did you have children Ninmast? I've never even heard of your kids, how have they been lately?

[This One]

Jul 14, 2010 23:58:00 GMT -5 Silva said:

I actually agree with you on this, but I am going to remember it in case you make any argument in favor of censorship.

What do you mean by censorship? Do you mean something such as the government censoring the media or "thought police"?

Slim chance I'd ever support anything like that- the idea of the government being in control of what we hear rather than the citizens is scary enough, but it also infringes on free speech, and once we start ignoring the Constitution there's nothing left to hold the country together.

All that being said, I don't mind if someone writes a book about sex or if an artist does a nude portrait; that's their right and they can make the material as informative or as pornographic as they'd like. However, exposing something like that to minors is not appropriate. They want to teach fifth graders how to give fellatio, for goodness' sake.

[shinaobi]

*jumps in through window*

Personally, I'd say nay to sex-ed before high school, and an even louder nay to teaching minors how to....do...sex. Really, it's asking for traumatization of all kinds.

Now, don't get me wrong; as a modern-day high schooler, I can say that abstinence will factually not work as a strategy. What I will ask is that it be offered as an elective, and educate about STDs and safe sex practices.

For more relevant, story-related things: I think it's pretty okay to teach young children that homosexuality is acceptable, don't teach fifth graders how sex is had, it's totally okay for them to be in the dark at that age, I promise they won't turn into serial rapists and/or murderers.

I'll stop talking much here, because I noticed that Fox is reporting this one, which makes me suspect that there are parts of this story being annoyingly underreported/overemphasized/made up (Mass Effect is NOT a rape simulator, kthxbai). I'll come back with some more edits once I've had the opportunity to see this story in other places.


EDIT: Derp derp, check this out, google fu found this, which includes a PDF link to their plan; for my thoughts, I'd say that I don't think middle schoolers(or 5th graders) need to know about all the methods of...penetration, kaythanks. I find the program up to about 5th grade to otherwise be pretty okay; tolerance is good stuff.

[Ninmast]

I am all for respecting others, but it's my job to teach my child that, and at the same time, if my beliefs indicate that actions such as homosexuality are not an issue of free choice, but of right and wrong, I have not just the right, but the duty to teach my child that. If I had a child in the educational system, I would not permit them to tell my child that homosexuality, or "free" sexuality in general, is appropriate or moral, and I certainly don't think it's their business telling my child "how it works."

[shinaobi]

Well, I'll save everybody a lot of anger and just say I respectfully disagree with you on the issue of homosexuality(I feel bad calling it an issue, just to give you some perspective on mah opinions), and, for that reason, I'd say we're at one of those points where I feel it's best to agree to disagree. I will reiterate that children have no business knowing how to execute sex acts, though, and even us high schoolers (we're totally practically adults, ya know, so SHARUP >:[) have some things we just don't want people a good generation or three out trying to teach us.

And, for when public education makes us angry, there's always private education/homeschooling!

[Psi]

After seeing the title to this thread I was wondering, "What the hell?!", but after seeing what it was talking about, I think it is a great idea if it is handled a little better.

I think the introduction of information about sex is a great idea when done in a controlled and scientific method. I believe the idea would be getting children used to what sex is, why it happens, and how it does early on so that it isn't such a dark art growing up. Since information about sex is guarded from children they naturally want to learn more. When you give them that information throughout their lives it just becomes a part of life.

Now, I think that maybe a few things should be bumped up a grade or two but if done right, it could help.

As for teaching children that people do come from different situations and that it is okay to be yourself, I think that is a fantastic idea. I understand that some people believe that it is wrong to be this or that, but I would hope that the children can be taught that you can accept others for who they are while also keeping your beliefs. It would, hopefully, get rid of some unneeded hate and prejudice in their later lives.

If I had a child I would be okay with this happening. I would sit down with him/her everyday and go over those things again just to reiterate what the teachers taught and make sure he/she understands.

Now, as for the people giving out condoms in kindergarten...that's more than a little too far.

[Teh Donut]

Jul 15, 2010 20:02:44 GMT -5 Psi said:

Now, as for the people giving out condoms in kindergarten...that's more than a little too far.

I hope they give out flavoured condoms, so the kids will learn that it's okay to put them in their mouths, and some kid can die from inhaling a ballon, and the douchebags who think it's a "good idea" can finally learn that children don't do/think what you expect them to. Like someone (I forget exactly who) said, they're probably just going to play with the condoms like ballons, anyway.

I've seen youtube. I know how much water that "ballon" can hold.

Anywho, on-topic.

The fact of the matter is, no one's child is going to learn about sex et al from their parents. I've never known anyone who had "the talk" (if they had one at all) with their parents before they already knew what sex was. We have the internet. We have the TV. We have magazines, books, movies, Spencers...hell, EJP is one of the lucky few who went as far as he did without knowing what sex was.

The problem is that these people are trying to be "proactive," thinking that they should get to the kids before the kids figure out all this on their own. What they don't realize is that the kids don't give a shit about sex at those ages, and they don't really care. The whoremones hormones haven't kicked in yet. Their bodies aren't developed yet. They simply don't care. And that's the first issue I have with this garbage: I would much, much rather any child I have read about sex somewhere or look at some porno site on the web or get curious about it in his own right and ask out-of-the-blue "daddy, what's sex" and have have me explain it in plain to him myself in plain english...rather than having my child spoon-fed some sugar-coated institutionalized bullshit that'll only befuddle him and cause him problems later.

Hell, maybe I'll just not discuss it at all. I found out about sex on my own, without any parental "talk", and I think I've done well in refraining from sowing my seed willy-nilly.

I can guarantee you that if some uber-traditionalist nutter tried to propose some Victorian-era curriculum that does the exact opposite of all this, teaching that homosexuality is evil and sexuality in art is evil and etcetera, he would be run out of the country. But it's all "socially acceptable" and woven into our society that not wanting someone else to teach our kids these things is somehow an admission that this person is some kind of over-protective hate-mongering homophobe. The news spreads slowly. Parents no longer get to parent. Hannity pointed out, and it's one of the few things on which I agree with him, that the government can't teach our children how to read, write, and do math, yet the people running this district somehow think it's a good thing that the government teach our children about sexuality.

And that's my second issue with this: government should never have been allowed into the classroom in the first place. But it's government's job to block dissemination of information and censor the knowledge of the general public, replacing them with the lies it wants the country to learn. FDR was a good president. Using the atom bomb was necessary to end WWII. The Sons of Liberty were more than mere vandals. The Civil War was about stopping the evils of slavery, not about states' rights/preserving the Union. Yada yada.

State-run education, of all things, is meant to be unbiased and not include the moral agenda often used in private schools. We refuse to teach Creationism or Religion in public schools because of this. If they want to use public funds to push a moral agenda, then they better follow their curriculum with a voucher plan for public education, so I have a say in where my child goes to school and which school gets my tax money. I can guarantee you that it won't go to any school that does this shit.

If some child wants to learn about erotic art or painting/scultping nudes, he can take a class at a community college on it. With his own money. On his own time. I will not pay for someone else's child to sit and stare at naked people when he barely knows basic grammar or algebra. The system needs to make sure it gets the fucking basics of education down before it starts adding on bullshit pet projects like this.

If some 5th-grader wants to learn sex positions to impress his 3rd-grade cousin later that evening, he can Google them like his parents did.

shinaobi said:

Well, I'll save everybody a lot of anger and just say I respectfully disagree with you on the issue of homosexuality(I feel bad calling it an issue, just to give you some perspective on mah opinions), and, for that reason, I'd say we're at one of those points where I feel it's best to agree to disagree. I will reiterate that children have no business knowing how to execute sex acts, though, and even us high schoolers (we're totally practically adults, ya know, so SHARUP >:[) have some things we just don't want people a good generation or three out trying to teach us.

And, for when public education makes us angry, there's always private education/homeschooling!

This isn't about whether what sexuality is right or wrong or other such nonsense, this is about the government using public education funds provided by every tax-payer regardless of their personal opinions on what is being taught, to push a biased social agenda to the detriment of any opposing arguement on the subjects taught. The problem is that public funds, taken from everyone, are being used to push an exclusive (and radical, given America's conservative nature) viewpoint on what is morally and socially acceptable.

If the schools want to teach the facts of life, that there are different households, that sometimes people have two mommies or two daddies, that calling people names are hurtful...whatever, fine, the kid's going to find out anyway. But teaching what's right and wrong is the exclusive domain of the parent. Otherwise, we begin to move into the realm of Orwellian thought-police.

Don't give me that bullshit about how the "snowball" effect can't happen, Silva. The Soviet Union didn't turn into a social cesspit by accident, but by the slow, systematic elimination of personal right, replaced by government oversight.

thisone said:

What is it with America's sudden dependence on the government? Socialism. Socialism everywhere. Vietnam was for no reason, man.

Sudden? Where've you been? America's been excessively government-dependent for the past 90+ years. It's only just now that they've run out of minor "oh, those rights don't really matter" issues, and have moved on to the more controversial, thought-provoking "hey, wait a minute...this doesn't feel right" issues. Americans might be blind to a lot, but most still know bullshit when they smell it.

I'm ranting. I'll stop now, before my train of thought completely derails.