Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Wisconsin DA Threatens Arrests Over Sex Ed 703

Posted by samzenpus
from the talk-about-genitals-go-directly-to-jail dept.
WrongSizeGlass writes "USA Today is reporting that the DA of Juneau County, Wisconsin, is warning teachers that they could face arrest over the new sex-ed curriculum. District Attorney Scott Southworth said a new state law that requires students learn to use condoms and other contraceptives 'promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.' Southworth also said, 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers. I've got enough work to do.'"

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wisconsin DA Threatens Arrests Over Sex Ed

Comments Filter:
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:36PM (#31769300)

    DA: Hey Legislative Branch, your new law on sex-ed requires teachers to break your old law on sexual misconduct. Please fix. I'd rather not have to charge all the teachers in the state.
    Legislator: Duh, say what? I don't write no contradictory laws.
    DA: See you in court!

    • by pla (258480) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:42PM (#31769358) Journal
      Legislator: Duh, say what? I don't write no contradictory laws.
      DA: See you in court!


      If only...

      Unfortunately, as happens far too often, the legislators themselves don't go to jail for BS like this. Instead, we have random Joes just trying to do their jobs who now have to choose which of two laws to break.

      (+5 insightful, but I wanted to comment as well).
      • by Z00L00K (682162) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:50PM (#31769484) Homepage

        Some legislators parents should have used condoms.

        • by Cryacin (657549) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:01PM (#31769612)
          That, or at least not dated their siblings.
        • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:13PM (#31769776) Journal

          Some legislators parents should have used condoms.

          It's not too late.

          Did you know that it's possible to get a condom over someone's head and that this will deprive them of air?

          • by oldspewey (1303305) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @09:21PM (#31770920)

            Fun party trick:

            Use a plain latex condom with no lube or spermicide (trust me on this one). Stretch the condom using your fingers, fist, and finally two fists. You will eventually get it to the point where you can actually slip it over the top of your head. Roll it down until it covers your nose, but not your mouth.

            Breath in through your mouth. Breath out through your nose. Condom fills with a little bit of air. Repeat.

            Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat ... eventually, the condom will fill with so much air that it literally towers 2 feet above your head, with the little sperm reservoir pointing toward the ceiling. Keep filling ... eventually, the condom will burst loudly and dramatically.

            I have seen this done at parties and laughed my ass off. I have done this at parties and had the whole room laughing their asses off. The drunker the crowd, the more enthusiastic the response.

        • by beakerMeep (716990) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:17PM (#31769818)
          Yeah except this has nothing to do with legislative conflicts and more to do with a young, egotistical, fundamentalist christian DA from a specific country trying to scare people and get in the news and impose his beliefs on people. He needs to STFU and GBTW.

          From TFA:

          The paper spoke to a co-author of the legislation. She called the DA's letter "irresponsible" and said it was "laughable to think teachers could be charged for telling students how to use contraception." "Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone," said Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison. "This guy is not a credible legal source on this matter, I'm sorry to say. His purpose is to intimidate and create enough panic in the minds of school administrators that they'll turn their backs on young people and their families."

        • by Burning1 (204959) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:29PM (#31769958) Homepage

          Some legislators parents should have used condoms.

          Remember: These are the best legislators we could get. Just imagine the ones that didn't make the cut.

      • Why contradictory? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Roger W Moore (538166) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:20PM (#31769870) Journal
        Isn't it impossible to have contradictory laws - at least within a single legal system? The way it works in the UK at least is that any new law automatically supercedes older ones. So if there is a contradiction you follow the most recent law because it is deemed that MPs have changed their minds about the previous law. Does this DA really believe that any judge would find a teacher guilty if he took it to court? It strikes me as if he is trying to change the law rather than enforce it which is not part of his job description.
        • by Dthief (1700318) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:25PM (#31769926)
          Even if he is guaranteed to lose, what teacher wants to go through all the craziness of a legal case, not to mention the potential costs for the school/teacher. Its ridiculous bullying.
    • by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:44PM (#31769384)

      I don't think this is just a case of someone pointing out a contradictory law.

      "Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."

      I think he very much believes that it just shouldn't be taught.

      • by Chris Burke (6130) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:06PM (#31769678) Homepage

        "Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote.

        Holy fucking shit. That's even crazier than the "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children" line from the summary. I thought my ears had gone mad at that line. I mean what's the logic -- acknowledging the potential sexuality of our kids means promoting it, which somehow means there will be more pedophiles? But no it's even crazier than that.

        I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!

        Of all the bat-shit crazy things I've heard come out of the "think of the children" crowd, this has got to be the looniest. God, my head hurts.

        • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:19PM (#31769856) Journal

          I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!

          I don't think that's what he's saying. I think what he's saying is one of the following three things:

          1. Kids who receive graphic sex ed will catch the sexy cooties and flaunt their nether regions, thus tempting those with no self control.

          2. Kids who receive graphic sex ed will be consumed with desire for the rest of their lives and will grow up to be rapists of children.

          3. Derp derp derp!

          Now, as for 1 & 2, I think this guy could be one of those people who has issues with his own self-control, and projects that onto others, so that the only reasonable course of action is to make all women wear burkas so that the men helpless to overcome their sexual desire are not tempted. This would explain his rationale if either 1 or 2 were true.

          Another possibility is that this guy sees himself as a politician on the rise, and is trying to score points with social conservatives.

          But somehow, #3 holds the most promise as a valid explanation in my opinion.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          It may encourage sexual intercourse between minors which in some US states is statutory rape even if it is "consensual". Secondly, I do not think school age kids should be having sex, but the solutions so far provided are not even a band-aid, they just plain do not work. The root of the problem is that kids are bored and have too much free time. When I was at school (not in the US) we did not even *think* of sex until at least 19 y/o, why? 8 hours at school, 8 hours of homework and extra-curricular activiti
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dkleinsc (563838)

        Actually, I'm not even sure whether he believes that this stuff shouldn't be taught. What he may believe is that by writing this letter he can get a lot of support in the next election cycle from the idiotic portion of his constituents who believe that this stuff shouldn't be taught.

    • by canajin56 (660655) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:05PM (#31769674)
      No, it's not like that at all. He's saying any form of sex education is illegal, which isn't supported by the law whatsoever. There is no contradiction except in his twisted head, where he thinks everybody who knows what sex is will automatically rape. He has an adopted child, maybe Child Services should pay them a visit, if he really thinks that.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by _KiTA_ (241027)

      DA: Hey Legislative Branch, your new law on sex-ed requires teachers to break your old law on sexual misconduct. Please fix. I'd rather not have to charge all the teachers in the state.
      Legislator: Duh, say what? I don't write no contradictory laws.
      DA: See you in court!

      Wouldn't the newer law supplement the older one? The impression I got was the DA didn't agree with the new law (the quote about it "sexualizing" kids reeks of typical Republican "sexual freedom is bad unless it's us at a strip club with our mistresses" attitude) and was using the older (obsolete) law as a bludgeon to try and prevent the newer law from being used.

  • Sex (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:37PM (#31769312) Journal

    The hypocrisy in US in unbelievable. Violence and killing people is all okay in TV, but when it's teaching persons about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden.
    Even while I live in Europe and sexuality is quite okayish here, my parents never taught anything about it. I learned it from school and from friends. And let me say this, what they taught in school was probably a lot more responsible than what my friends told me.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that all of the hate about sexuality is from older people who don't know how to get, don't have the mindset to get it or are angry at other people who have fun doing it. After all, when you're adult it's one of the most fun things to do.

    • Re:Sex (Score:5, Interesting)

      by couchslug (175151) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:41PM (#31769352)

      In the US, religionists hate sex that isn't rationed according to their superstition. Americans, by and large, are religious, willfully ignorant, and ruled by fear. Any pleasure not rationed by preacher or priest is evil.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by shentino (1139071)

        I think the clitoris, which AFAIK has no practical function, is strong evidence that sex was literally designed to be enjoyed.

        God invented it, says I.

    • Re:Sex (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LostCluster (625375) * on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:41PM (#31769354)

      Most of the problem is that sexual reproduction and evolution makes several contradictions with some really popular book that people think too much about.

    • Re:Sex (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blankinthefill (665181) <blachanc.gmail@com> on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:46PM (#31769414) Journal
      Besides being more responsible, it also has an effect on many negative numbers like teen pregnancy. For years, teen pregnancy dropped. With the advent of abstinence only sex ed being the only sex ed that the government would fund, teen pregnancy started to rise. Educating teens about the the risks of unprotected sex is a good idea. Telling teens just not to do it... not such a good idea. Personally, my kids will know almost anything they want to about sex as soon as they ask me, because I feel that being prepared, and knowing the risks involved is thousands of times better than just feeling it out yourself (which is what kids will do, no matter what we tell them). Teens CAN make good choices about things... IF they are educated about them. Remove the education, and those good choices go out the window also.
    • Re:Sex (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Duradin (1261418) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:49PM (#31769482)

      It's like you're trying to say violence and killing aren't natural human functions.

    • Re:Sex (Score:5, Insightful)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:06PM (#31769680)

      The hypocrisy in US in unbelievable. Violence and killing people is all okay in TV, but when it's teaching persons about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden.

      To be fair, I think most parents are correct in thinking that their high-schooler is more likely to have sex than flip out and kill people.

      I believe they're quite incorrect in assuming that if kids don't know how to have sex safely though, they won't have sex. I think most of the gap in their logic there is filled in with discomfort over thinking of their children as young adults with urges, and nonsense about sex being immoral.

  • by samriel (1456543) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:40PM (#31769334)
    Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible? Or would you rather that they have the knowledge of how to use contraceptives to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STDs? We teach kids how to do everything else safely, but we think, "Well, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway, so if we don't tell them about it, they won't do it." Hogwash.
    • by abulafia (7826) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:15PM (#31769802)

      Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible?

      Well, that is the problem, isn't it?

      And you don't have to look far to see that at least some anti-sex-ed types want people to suffer for having sex. Not all of them, but some do. Multiple prominent people fight HPV vaccination because they see it as enabling premarital sex without the "consequences" they find appropriate. Even though any rational person has to know that some percentage (in the case of HPV, a disturbingly large one) of kids are going to have sex and contract it anyway. To the people making this argument, that is an appropriate "consequence" of fucking before marriage. You hear similar things from some anti-abortion types who also tend to talk about "consequences". The people who think this way especially give themselves away when they oppose birth control, as in this case, which reduces the incidence of abortion. They are more concerned with controlling people's sexuality than they are about reducing incidence of disease or abortion.

      A lot of times, they'll cluck about that not being the intent, but you simply have to look at their actions - are they supporting the reduction of preventable disease and death? There are some, probably, who are sufficiently clueless as to not understand the consequences of what they support, but if they're that clueless, they shouldn't be listened to, anyway. And what can be said about people who prefer disease and death to sexual freedom?

  • by russotto (537200) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:45PM (#31769396) Journal

    Just because you share your name with an Alaska city doesn't mean you have to be as dumb as Sarah Palin.

  • Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sponge Bath (413667) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:46PM (#31769410)

    Southworth also said 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do.'"

    Apparently not. Like the recent nullification suits brought to defeat health care reform, not even the originators believe there is any merit to these actions. This is all about grandstanding to promote a particular ideology at tax payer expense. It's just a shame this guy is terrorizing teachers in the process.

    • What's with this current batch of activist DAs anyway? Are they being set up as scapegoats for all of the batshit-crazy schemes hatched by the majority party?

      Virginia's DA has ruffled more than a few feathers during his short term in office. His first major action as DA was to send letters to the presidents of each of the state's universities, informing them that they were not allowed to not discriminate against their employees with regard to sexual orientation.

      Although it was completely ambiguous as to h

  • Same guy? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MaggieL (10193) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:47PM (#31769426)

    Gee, is this the same Scott Harold Southworth who was named a "CNN Hero" when he adopted a crippled Iraqi boy when he was deployed with the WI National Guard? Even though he's not married?

    from: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/15/sm.02.html [cnn.com]

    Of course there are people around us every day who are doing extraordinary things to make our world better. And all this year we are honoring them. We are bringing you stories of people that we call "CNN Heroes". And we're also inviting you to tell us about the heroes that you happen to know.

    So, today we introduce you to a man from Wisconsin who went from fighting insurgents in Iraq to becoming a single father. Scott Southworth is today's CNN Hero.

    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ready?

    SCOTT SOUTHWORTH, CNN HERO: No soldier goes to war with the expectation of coming home and adopting an orphan from the war zone.

    My name is Major Scott Harold Southworth. I'm a member of the Wisconsin Army National Guard and the proud father of an Iraqi orphan by the name of Ala'a Adem (ph).

    Come on, Ala'a.

    My soldiers and I volunteered at the Mother Theresa Orphanage in Baghdad, Iraq. I did not choose Ala'a, Ala' a chose me.

    When the sisters informed me that they were going to have to move him to the government orphanage, I instantly told them that I would adopt them. There were a number of obstacles to bringing him to the United States. Not having enough money and not having a stable enough career, not having a wife.

    But I could not, as a Christian man, walk away from that little boy. It really was a step of faith for me to just put that into action. He's a good little boy.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am.

    SOUTHWORTH: I know you are.

    It's been what, two and a half years since I picked Ala'a up in Baghdad? He's learning how to walk. He's doing addition and subtraction. He's learning to read the English language. He's just a brilliant little boy.

    Come on, work those legs.

    He's limited by some of the things he can do physically, but I never treat Ala'a as though he's disabled.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I love you.

    SOUTHWORTH: I love you too, my buddy.

    Ala'a is so much more a blessing to me than I am to him. I felt a ton of sympathy for Ala'a when I was in Iraq. But Ala'a didn't need my sympathy. What he needed was some action.
    (END VIDEOTAPE)

    And so now he thinks sex education is child abuse?

  • Applied skills (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cffrost (885375) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:47PM (#31769438) Homepage
    I'd love to hear a good argument for the benefit gained by kids engaging in sex not knowing how to use condoms.
  • by Derekloffin (741455) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:48PM (#31769446)
    I mean, if you got issue with the law, then take it to the law makers. Don't take it out on the freaking teachers.
  • Bullshit Detector (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Spatial (1235392) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:49PM (#31769470)

    promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.

    That pegged my bullshit detector. In fact I think it broke the peg clean off.

  • He's another twit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:52PM (#31769504) Homepage Journal

    using the school system to shove his religious views down everyones throats.

    He thinks learning about condoms cause people to rape more.

    Fucking idiot.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by darkmeridian (119044)

      He doesn't even make sense in his own fantasy land. I think he means statutory sexual assault--if kids are having sex with kids, then they're being victimized if they're underaged. However, statutory rape doesn't apply when both parties have consented, but are both underaged. It's called the Romeo and Juliet rule. Methinks this prosecutor should read the laws again before making grandiose pronouncements; after all, it's his FUCKING JOB to do so.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by compro01 (777531)

        However, statutory rape doesn't apply when both parties have consented, but are both underaged. It's called the Romeo and Juliet rule

        Actually, that doesn't exist in most states. Only 21 (IIRC) states have that type of exemption. Wisconsin is among those that don't.

  • by Chris Burke (6130) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:55PM (#31769546) Homepage

    Hey says it "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children."

    Okay okay I can barely understand the first part. By teaching kids about sex and contraception, you are in a way acknowledging that they are or will be sexual beings, and I guess going from stubbornly and blindly refusing to acknowledge kids' sexuality to acknowledging the possibility could be called "promoting"... In a society as hung up about sex as ours, I can see how that reasoning comes about.

    But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work? Is there a section in the class about how to be a rape victim? A video about how cool PTSD and group counseling are? Or is it that would-be predators will see the worldly look in the newly-educated kid's eyes and think "Ah, that one's fair game, he's practically asking for it!"

    Fuck, nevermind. I don't even want to know what went on inside their head in the course of making the connection between sex ed and sexual assault.

    Oh wait, I forgot, what went on was nothing. "Think of the children" means "For heaven's sake, don't think!"

  • EndGame (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <obsessivemathsfreak@ei r c o m .net> on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @06:58PM (#31769570) Homepage Journal

    At last, 10 years of Paedophile and Child Pornography hysteria are beginning to pay off dividends. It begins with Sex Education classes, which by now are probably liability time bombs for all adults involved. It won't end there though. This has been the Endgame all along; a return to the social mores of the 1950s or earlier.

    Child porn hysteria is toppling the fucking Catholic Church! What hope does your feeble "Free Society" have?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by geekoid (135745)

      Child porn hysteria has nothing to do with covering up priest who sexyuall assaulted children.

      The bottom line is that no church goers can know if their priest sexual assaulted someone and if their children is in danger.

      I mean, they would just move them and still let them be around kids. It's fucking irresponsible. It also means the pope isn't infallible, or god want's kids raped.

      They could of at least sent them off to some monastery.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:00PM (#31769602)

    The atheists and devil-worshippers are trying to convince us that giving kids knowledge about sex will prevent things like STDs, AIDS, and pregnancies, but that is simply not true.

    The Bible, the most authoritative source on the subject, clearly points out that knowledge is the root of all evil. For example, in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. A True Believer of the Lord can only interpret that in one way: Knowledge is Evil, and it is our duty to make sure our children are as poorly educated as possible.

    Not just in regards to sex, but in other subjects, too. I have never allowed either of my children to attend school, and I forbid them to read anything except the Bible. I taught them enough english to understand it, and very little else. We do not have a television in our house, nor do we have a computer. For those wondering, I am typing this up at an internet cafe. I do this for their safety, as it is my duty to protect them from the dangers of the world. I despise my parents for making me go to college, and as a parent, I feel it is my responsibility to do things the Right Way. The Only Way.

    The Way God Wants Me To Do Things.

  • by Kitkoan (1719118) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:04PM (#31769648)

    To not show how to have safe sex is pretty much to rely on either teaching the kids nothing and let them learn the hard way, or teach abstinence in the schools. Problem is, abstinence doesn't work. [reuters.com] This has been shown many times.

    And to not show any safe sex information is worse, as shown in in China where they don't teach much about safe sex [slate.com] and this leads to many unwanted pregnancies. Teens are bombarded with images and messages of sex every day, even in places like the supermarket where the latest issues of magazines like Cosmo, [gagadaily.com] scream sex on their covers for all to see. Then you have ads from companies like American Apparel [google.ca]. These images just play on teenage hormones so teens need to learn this since it's thrown at them so much and so often. And we can already see what happens if we don't.

  • by Databass (254179) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:05PM (#31769662)

    Condoms/contraceptives are to sex as seat belts are to driving: useful tools that can prevent unplanned, life-altering events.

    Some people might argue that teaching teens how to use seatbelts somehow makes them more likely to drive recklessly. Or that teaching about seat belts will increase their feelings of invincibility and trivialize the risks related to driving. I would say that teens that are aware of the reason for seatbelts will be more sober about the realities behind them. Those responsible enough to buckle up are those more likely to drive safely instead of recklessly.

    DA Southworth wants to criminilize knowledge of sexual protection for teens at the same age we allow them to begin driving. We can't pretend that ignoring the teen desire to drive cars is going to reduce it. Teens naturally want freedom, want to drive, and they will even if we ignore proper training. If anything, it should be criminal NOT to teach teens critical skills that can prevent derailing lives- and these skills include driver safety and safe sex both.

  • by OrwellianLurker (1739950) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:15PM (#31769806)
    I remember getting excused from sexual education in high school. It was abstinence education, with no practical skills taught. Basically they showed us a bunch of nasty pictures and told us to not fuck, suck, or kiss. I spent hours surfing the web while my taxes went towards hours of wasted time. It was funny how confused they were about my "religion" that forbids me from learning sexual education that is solely abstinence. Luckily, I basically told them to fuck off and quit prying and they did.
  • by zlel (736107) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:22PM (#31769890) Homepage
    Your children are having a lot more sex than you think. The only way you can discourage them is to teach them programming.
  • Fire the DA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by guspasho (941623) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @07:28PM (#31769952)

    "I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do."

    Bullshit. That's exactly what he just threatened to do by sending those letters.

    Teachers are in a very tough position, especially now that they are being threatened with arrest if they do what the law requires of them. This guy has a political agenda that is in opposition to the law. He is intimidating teachers into violating the law because of it. He is corrupt and doesn't deserve to be a district attorney.

    Some quotes from his letter (via TFA)

    "If a teacher instructs any student aged 16 or younger how to utilize contraceptives under circumstances where the teacher knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child -- or even where the 'natural and probable consequences' of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child -- that teacher can be charged under this statute" of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. ...

    "Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."

    Note the second quote where he is clearly proselytizing against the law. This is completely inappropriate for a district attorney.

  • by lexsird (1208192) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @08:21PM (#31770466)

    Buy your kid World of Warcraft, get them playing it and they will be virgins for the foreseeable future. And they will have plenty of company to act as a support group, millions of other virgins.

  • Sex Ed outside US (Score:5, Informative)

    by Danish_guy (847627) on Wednesday April 07, 2010 @09:14PM (#31770888)

    First off, sorry for the long post

    Second off, Seriously WTH??

    I'm a teacher at a danish public school and what the DA is suggesting here is almost criminallly negligent in Denmark.
    The pupils here HAVE to learn how to use contraceptives, it's the law. IMHO anything else is shooting yourself in the foot.
    Not teaching them these things will not prevent the kids from having sex. I've never quite understood the whole American "If we don't talk/think about it then it doesn't exist!" attitude. To be fair though, it's not just the americans. Earlier this week I watched a documentary about British teenagers and their knowledge about sex and it was horrifying. Chicken skin as condoms, rinse out with cola, eat indian food the day after you've had sex. These were somewhat widely spread beliefs among teenagers on how not to get pregnant.(it's 4 in the morning atm and I can't remember what the documentary was called, but I'll find the link to the statistics later after I've slept)

    Anyway, enough of my ramblings.
    I'm glad to hear that Mrs. Helen don't see things the way the DA does. I can not for the life of me see how not teaching about contraceptives would be the better choice. Hindering the spread of STD's and minimising unwanted teen pregnancies would only seem like a good thing, no?
    let's just for arguments sake do a little thought experiment.
    Based on the belief(my belief at least) that teens will have sex no matter what we tell them i see a few different scenarios.

    1: Teens have sex -> Teens don't use protection -> By sheer dumb luck nothing happens.

    2: Teens have sex -> Teens don't use protection -> STD gets transmitted -> Numerous doctors appointments and various medication that in the best case kills the STD and in the worst case the girl will not be able to bear children later in her life.(drastic contrast I know, but entirely possible and it serves the example well)

    3: Teens have sex -> Teens do use protection -> If used incorrectly there's a high probability that we'll end up as in example 2

    4: Teens have sex -> Teens do use protection -> If used correctly the risk of STD's or unwanted pregnancy is reduced to a virtuel minimumm.

    Feel free to correct these if you feel I've messed up, I AM going on my 28th hour awake.

    So even the knowledge of contraceptives can be hurtful if it is not well founded.

    Granted my students look at me like I've lost my mind when I bring bananas and condoms to class, and granted they're quite shy and embarresed at first, usually we'll just end up having a laugh about it though.
    I even know a colleague of mine encouraged her pupils to learn how to put on the comdoms using only their mouths, both the girls AND the boys(Who knows, some of them may be gay and this might come in handy?) This is far from standard curriculum though and not something any school here would reccomend. But as teachers we do have a lot of leeway to use the techniques we see fit.

    oh and as a last little side note here. We DO teach our pupils about alcohol, both in general and from personal experience uusually. They're gonna try it at parties anyway, so might as well prepare them as best we can. I'm not saying we bring alcohol to school, that's highly illegal, but we do talk about it in almost every aspect. The taste, smell, looks, effect(good and bad) etc. as do we when it comes to sex. The teachers have to make up with themselves if they want to include personal experience or not, but talking about how sex feels(both physically and psychologically) and what the goods and bads are about it, tends to have a lot more succes than just dry boring anatomy facts and standard info on STD's. Of course the anatomy, biology and the STD info is required teachings, but just listing facts is a dead sure way of not getting your pupils attention.
                               

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

Working...