God forbid we use science

[Thecla]

"Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney says

It might actually be right.

[Concillian]

I read this and oddly the following came to mind:

If you combine this "science based sex education" with the ideas of that surgeon general a while back who wanted to promote masturbation as a means of lowering teen pregnancy rates, you get a safe sex campaign that you can use Thomas Dolby's "She blinded me with science" as a theme for the whole thing, and that would be pretty cool.

[Munkay]

I read this and oddly the following came to mind:

If you combine this "science based sex education" with the ideas of that surgeon general a while back who wanted to promote masturbation as a means of lowering teen pregnancy rates, you get a safe sex campaign that you can use Thomas Dolby's "She blinded me with science" as a theme for the whole thing, and that would be pretty cool.

Really? That reminds me more of the song 'Relax' :P

*ducks and hopes Thecla will forgive me for going off topic*

Cheers,

Munk

[Thecla]

*ducks and hopes Thecla will forgive me for going off topic*

*raps Munkay hard on the knuckles*

Ducking didn't help very much, did it?

[[wcip]Angel]

"We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
- Mitt Romney

What, excactly, is he talking about? I thought the issue was whether or not to teach kids about sex, not waste management. (pause for laughter:P)

Although I feel puritanism needs a solid kick in the crotch, and I *do* support some of Obama's progressive views (warning: non-American stating an opinion, with apologies to Occhi:P), I'm not entirely convinced of the fact that kids should learn about sex at a young age. Certainly, questions should be answered truthfully, as the skirting of issues and introduction of big flying animals serves little to no purpose. Still, I think kids are already growing up too fast; they lose their innocence (the metaphorical one, not the "filthy" one, as Romney would put it) at an earlier age today than the last generation did, and so on. Shouldn't kids be allowed to be kids? Should we burden them with such heavy topics as sex (same for religion, politics, and other 'grown-up' issues.) Certainly, these topics can (and should) be introduced eventually, but I'm still young enough to fondly remember being 5 years old running around, a blue-eyed optimist, playing in a care-free world. Hell, I'm 24 now and I still want to be a kid! Peter Pan was right all along! :shuriken:

I don't know... the rantings of a bloody European has little value here anyway;)

*retreats to the shadows*

[Munkay]

It's sound byte politics at its best. At least the article Thecla linked explains the context of Obama's statement - which many resultant news stories have failed to do. In New Hampshire (I can't speak for Massachusetts) the state legislature passed a law about sexual education. The law ensured one thing, the right of a community to approach sexual education as they deem appropriate. As a result, it allowed communities to teach children about sexual predators before the age of 11 if the community deemed it necessary.

Since the law has been passed very little has changed in my community. In our town sex-ed is taught starting in the 7th grade with lessons about biological conception and birth. The more 'personal' side of sex education, including STD's, prophylactics et. al., is reserved until high school. As far as I know, there have been no moves to start teaching children anything younger than 7th grade. But thanks to NH law, if there comes a time when the community feels it needs to get the word out, it can.

Although my community has remained relatively sheltered from sex crimes, other towns like Raymond NH has not. Recently, a man was found to have over 150,000 pictures of child pornography on his computer. I'm unsure whether the community will react to the incident publicly, but if they do choose to they have the ability to without having to worry about skirting the issue because of sex education laws.

With that said, I have a feeling the media is more to blame for turning this into sound byte politics than Romney's camp. From what I can see, Romney spoke to a group of social conservatives in SC and made it clear that for him sexual education of any kind shouldn't be taught to young children. And that's a highly defensible position. Now if they media hadn't taken that comment and put it on the national news as a 'Romney vs. Obama: Sexual Education in Kindergarten', I don't think there'd be much to talk about. Instead, the issue gets muddled, and everyone is fed sound bytes out of context. The worst-case-scenario media at its best.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. Hope this is a more acceptable reply, Thecla:)

[eppie]

"Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten," Romney says

It might actually be right.

Is there anybody at all that takes republican senators serious? I mean the 'schandals' involving prostitutes, gayness, marrying over and over again just pile up. I mean I don't have problems at all with somebody being gay, going to a prostitute or marrying several times , but talk about hypocrisy here.

It however confirm my opinion that people who are loudest against something are usually the ones involved. (I guess I don't have to for the somannied time mention the catholic churce and child abuse connection). I would put a smiley face, but it is very sad actually.

I also appologise for going off topic.

[Occhidiangela]

Is there anybody at all that takes republican senators serious?

Ever heard of John Warner?

You only know "what you read in the papers," eppie, which means you don't know much about America.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

"We should be working to clean up the filthy waters our kids are swimming in."
- Mitt Romney

What, excactly, is he talking about? I thought the issue was whether or not to teach kids about sex, not waste management. (pause for laughter:P)

He might have been talking about the turd in the gene pool, not sure.

I'm not entirely convinced of the fact that kids should learn about sex at a young age.

My daughter's sex education began at age 9, in the home, with me discussing the mechanical and biological issues since my wife was feeling skittish and I wanted to get the message out before she hit puberty, and before it became a catch up game vis a vis other kids and school.

I wanted her smarter than the other kids on that one, know what I mean?

I didn't much care what the Catholic Church thought about how I raised my children, so religiosity has NOTHING to do with it, if you give a hoot about your kids.

If you delegate that part of their learning to someone else, you are part of the problem, period.

I don't know... the rantings of a bloody European has little value here anyway;)
*retreats to the shadows*

How is that degree going at university?

Occhi

[Munkay]

Is there anybody at all that takes republican senators serious? I mean the 'schandals' involving prostitutes, gayness, marrying over and over again just pile up. I mean I don't have problems at all with somebody being gay, going to a prostitute or marrying several times , but talk about hypocrisy here.

All politicians are people. And not necessarily the best people for the job. Like most people, the majority of them do incredibly stupid things that get them in trouble.

Welcome to the human political system :P

Cheers,

Munk

[Ashock]

The only people who think that children as young as kindergardeners need any sex education at all, are those that do not have any children of their own.

10-11 year olds.... yeh, they need to know some things. 5-6 year olds need to know how to wipe their butts well and not pick their nose in public.... or at least not eat the contents.

[kandrathe]

Is there anybody at all that takes republican senators serious?

You can stop at "politicians".

I mean the 'schandals' involving prostitutes, gayness, marrying over and over again just pile up. I mean I don't have problems at all with somebody being gay, going to a prostitute or marrying several times , but talk about hypocrisy here.

Insert Lord Acton quote here.

It however confirms my opinion that people who are loudest against something are usually the ones involved. (I guess I don't have to for the frequent times I've mentioned the catholic church and child abuse connection). I would put a smiley face, but it is very sad actually.

Again, power, Lord Acton, etc. I would also add the added temptation of the forbidden fruit. There is an addictiveness to the rush of getting away with sins or crimes. Ask habitual criminals.

[kandrathe]

The only people who think that children as young as kindergardeners need any sex education at all, are those that do not have any children of their own.

10-11 year olds.... yeh, they need to know some things. 5-6 year olds need to know how to wipe their butts well and not pick their nose in public.... or at least not eat the contents.

2nded. My 4.5 and 6.5 both are still fearful of getting girl germs if they touch a girl (except their mother). I think that is fine. When they start to better understand the mechanics, and express any infatuations with the opposite sex, then we'll talk.

[Jester]

Does anyone have any example of what "age appropriate" sex education means in this context?

-Jester

[Munkay]

Does anyone have any example of what "age appropriate" sex education means in this context?

-Jester

From what I said earlier:

The law ensured one thing, the right of a community to approach sexual education as they deem appropriate. As a result, it allowed communities to teach children about sexual predators before the age of 11 if the community deemed it necessary.

If you're looking for a standard there isn't one, the law wasn't designed to say 'this is the standard for what is okay'. But rather a community can decide what's okay in certain contexts - like reacting to a child pornographer in town (whether that be a message to 6 year olds saying don't let people touch you or take pictures of you, or whether there shouldn't be an action at all). The law isn't an intiative to start sex education in the classroom, but rather to allow certain agreed upon sexual related topics if there is a clear need for it.

Cheers,

Munk

[Jester]

Given the rather horrifying statistics for how widespread sexual abuse of children is, I would suspect that it would be worthwhile to teach all children at least the basics of what is and isn't appropriate touching at a young age.

If this is what Mitt Romney is arguing against, then I am appalled that he would make it an issue. Surely, protecting children from sexual abuse, whether in the home or outside, is something everyone can agree on?

-Jester

[Ashock]

Given the rather horrifying statistics for how widespread sexual abuse of children is, I would suspect that it would be worthwhile to teach all children at least the basics of what is and isn't appropriate touching at a young age.

If this is what Mitt Romney is arguing against, then I am appalled that he would make it an issue. Surely, protecting children from sexual abuse, whether in the home or outside, is something everyone can agree on?

-Jester

How did you go from ""How much sex education is age appropriate for a 5-year-old? In my mind, zero is the right number." - Romney, = to "the basics of what is and isn't appropriate touching at a young age." - Jester.

Stretching a bit far for the cause here , no?

[[wcip]Angel]

My daughter's sex education began at age 9, in the home, with me discussing the mechanical and biological issues since my wife was feeling skittish and I wanted to get the message out before she hit puberty, and before it became a catch up game vis a vis other kids and school.

An admirable goal. I imagine doing something similar myself if I should be so lucky to have children some day. From a pedagogic point of view, I imagine equipping one's child with bits and pieces of knowledge prior to their formal schooling will only foster a sense of pride and confidence, but also a sense of generosity of spirit, by allowing them to share information other pupils didn't learn at home due to a more 'traditional' approach to upbringing.

I wanted her smarter than the other kids on that one, know what I mean?

I do.

How is that degree going at university?

All done. I'm a high school teacher now. Received my degree in the mail. Folded it up and put it under the tilted dinner table. Works like a charm! 6 years of university finally paid off!:)

[Jester]

How did you go from ""How much sex education is age appropriate for a 5-year-old? In my mind, zero is the right number." - Romney, = to "the basics of what is and isn't appropriate touching at a young age." - Jester.

Stretching a bit far for the cause here , no?

First off: glad you have (once again) broken your angry vow never to reply to my posts ever again.

Second: Basic aspects of sex education is what Obama was advocating for kindergarteners. By this, he apparently means things like appropriate vs. innapropriate touches, or whether people should be allowed to take naked picutres of you. Since that is non-zero sex education, Romney objected to Obama's support for this education, arguing that the correct number is zero. I think that is ridiculous.

How is that 'stretching'?

-Jester

[Ashock]

First off: glad you have (once again) broken your angry vow never to reply to my posts ever again.

Second: Basic aspects of sex education is what Obama was advocating for kindergarteners. By this, he apparently means things like appropriate vs. innapropriate touches, or whether people should be allowed to take naked picutres of you. Since that is non-zero sex education, Romney objected to Obama's support for this education, arguing that the correct number is zero. I think that is ridiculous.

How is that 'stretching'?

-Jester

Sex education and where not to touch children are not the same thing. How is "Don't let anyone touch you here and here" sex education? "Apparently" means? How do you know what he "apparently means"? After quickly scanning the article I did not see anywhere where it said that Romney was against telling kids about not letting people touch them in inappropriate places or taking pictures of this type. Either way, even if he did say he was against that also, this is not sex education anyway. This is life education. But he did not say this anyway, so it's a small matter.

As far as not replying to you, let me be honest here. I frankly forgot if you were on my list or not since it's been a while since I posted in any of these threads. I was not sure and I actually thought about it. There are umm.... 5-6 people that I am 100% sure of that I do not reply to for various reasons. I was not 100% sure about you as you lack any sort of distinctness for me as far as my reasons for not replying. However, thanks for the reminder. My mistake. Corrected.