Wisconsin DA Threatens Arrests Over Sex Ed 703
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.'"
Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Sex (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
They're going to do it anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sex (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:News for Nerds??!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me, but what does this story have to do with my rights online at all? Or how is this a story worth of "news for nerds"?
There is no tech relevance. It's really a local educational issue that stuff like this happens in every district.
Slashdot editors really need to start picking up the slack. It's getting pretty thin pickings here nowadays.
It may surprise you, but most of us geeks also have sex. And considering the next generation of geeks, its probably better they are taught the safety things at schools.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sex (Score:5, Insightful)
Applied skills (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs a firing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit Detector (Score:3, Insightful)
promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.
That pegged my bullshit detector. In fact I think it broke the peg clean off.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some legislators parents should have used condoms.
He's another twit (Score:5, Insightful)
using the school system to shove his religious views down everyones throats.
He thinks learning about condoms cause people to rape more.
Fucking idiot.
Promotes sexual assault? Have my ears gone insane? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re:He's another twit (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Why not make it voluntary? (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you really think that would be helpful?
So 3/4 of the class learn about sex in a classroom environment within curriculum guidelines, while your kid sits in the library, none the wiser about sex as it being an awkward topic that you have not initiated (if you had, then surely there'd be no worries to let him sit in on the class.
Then guess what?
He gets his sex education filtered from the other kids on the playground, while you sit at home wondering if 15 is old enough for a "birds and bees" metaphor.
Tell Ozzy and Harriet I said "Fuck off."
Re:Why not make it voluntary? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you haven't talked to your kids by the time the school has them in this program, you're too late.
That said, I would be very surprised if you couldn't get religious exception. Sad, but true. I mean if the only way you can force your religion on your children is through ignorance, then maybe you should sit down and have a hard long think about your views?
And teaching someone to use a condom isn't a sin.
Your dad covered condom use? diaphragm use? the effectiveness of other birth control method? the risk of the rhythm method? the risk of AIDS? how the uterus works? the treatment for VD? Risks of oral sex? Blood pressure? all in 10 minutes.
I don't think so.
Your child might have sex before marriage. If they make the decision, wouldn't you rather they where knowledgeable about the subject? Isn't it better the a boy understands how a womens body works? Personal, I prefer knowledge of a mysterious black box.*
"I doubt there would be so much fuss over this."
Not me, sorry I've seen the wackos complain about volunteer programs to.
Bottom line:
I would wager 100 dollars that you can get a religious exemption, and that this guy just doesn't wants to shove his mid begotten beliefs down everyones throat.
No pun intended...but man, it would have been a good one.
Sex Ed is a needed course (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Condoms and Seatbelts (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Promotes sexual assault? Have my ears gone insa (Score:1, Insightful)
News flash: adolescents are not children. They're adolescents, which means they're approaching sexual maturity. They deserve to know what it's all about.
And since when is it illegal to promote knowledge about anything??
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Sex (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:They're going to do it anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Applied skills (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem though, there is this misguided belief that telling teens not to have sex is effective sex education. Last I read, at most, it leads to on average, about a six month delay of sex activity, and engaging in riskier behaviors because they're not taught about any measures of protection.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is patently absurd for two sixteen-year-olds to rape each other.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why contradictory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why contradictory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fire the DA (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why not make it voluntary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially in a public health care setting, where it is the taxpayer who is/will be footing the bill for treatment.
You were doing so well until you got to this sentence. Let's not pull this into the discussion and bring the loonies out (or give them an excuse to shout that public health care is forcing their children to watch porn in class).
How about instead you conclude with this:
Public health also means protecting the health of those children whose parents are too stupid, crazy, or superstitious to take steps to educate their kids on disease prevention. HIV, Syphilis, and Hepatitis can be fatal, but are all easily preventable and no person should get infected with them due to lack of knowledge.
The best we can get in a different way... (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember: These are the best legislators we could get. Just imagine the ones that didn't make the cut.
I can pretty easily imagine that some of those who didn't make the primary or general electoral cut might well have been better than most of those we get.
These are probably the best we can get... not because there aren't better ones out there, but because of the way we talk and think about "hiring."
Re:Sex (Score:1, Insightful)
I think your counter argument falls apart because, if your father were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - and yet were still your father in terms of personal attachments and personality - that's exactly what he'd do, right?
I think the mistake people make is in assuming that their understanding of good and evil accords, in any deep or meaningful way, with that of god (or at least, one having the 3 "O" characteristics above).
Insanity abounds! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexual assault doesn't have to be done by adults. Just recently in Arizona there was a Liberian girl raped by a group of young boys. IIRC the oldest boy was ~15. These kids won't choose to be victims, they may not even know if they do become victims.
Those weren't victims, those were rapists, and yes they sure as fuck knew what they were doing when they held the crying girl down and forced themselves on her.
These children are taught not to engage is sexual activity, but then they are told that sex is safe with a condom. So now little Jimmy may be convinced by his teacher/priest/coach that what they are doing is ok because he/she is going to use a condom.
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
You're seriously suggesting that we will teach kids about reproduction, the sex act, contraceptives, STDs... but that they will have literally no idea what rape is?!
What kind of fucking retarded curriculum are you talking about that's going to make a kid think that sex they don't want is "okay" if contraceptives are involved? How does that work? Is what you wrote literally what you think the extent of sex education is?
"Sex is safe and always okay if you use a condom"? That's idiotic. Sex ed is not like that.
I don't know about you, but for one I was taught about "bad touches" long before I was given sex education (which was pretty early) and for two, in my sex-ed class I was told that condoms made you safer from STDs and pregnancy, not sexual assault!
You seriously think a kid who knows nothing about sex, STDs, or contraceptives is going to be less likely to be taken advantage of than one who does? Get a clue!
Or, young children will think it's ok to diddle around with each other because they found contraceptives, and we end up with another girl or boy raped, by children.
Again, how do we get from "practice safe sex, use a condom" to "Forcing people to do things they don't want to do is okay, if condoms are involved!"
leave it to parents to talk about contraceptives and abstinence. Which ever the child's parents prefer.
Yeah and many parents will "prefer" to teach nothing at all. And only the child of such parents could possibly be so naive and ignorant as to have any of the scenarios you suggest actually come to pass. Only the child of such parents could possibly have such a misbegotten notion of what formal sex education actually is to have these "concerns".
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the stupidest analogy I've heard in awhile. It's actually akin to telling kids not to drive drunk, and then teaching them how to use a breathalyzer. His drinking analogy would be like telling kids not to have sex and then assigning them to read the Kama Sutra.
Re:Why not make it voluntary? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home.
Public health and public safety have nothing to do with your personal belief. Which is why you will be vaccinated regardless. Newborns will be screened for metabolic disease regardless. You will be ticketed for speeding regardless. And your kids will receive certain information at school regardless.
Because while YOU may be a responsible parent, there is a significant number of IRRESPONSIBLE parents. The idea is that the government must ensure that this information is made available to everyone because kids contracting HIV, Hepatitis B/C or gonorrhea, for example, are a PUBLIC HEALTH risk.
Especially in a public health care setting, where it is the taxpayer who is/will be footing the bill for treatment.
vaccination HIV, Hepatitis, or gonorrhea contraction. the latter represents risks inherent in voluntary behavior, while the former is prevents the risk of contraction through casual contact. Since we're talking voluntary behavior, personal belief systems which address voluntary behavior are relevant.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. The point is that two underage people having sex isn't automatically illegal, and if they're actually the same age it rarely is.
But it appears that in Wisconsin this isn't the case! It's actually true that two 16-yr-olds having sex are both guilty of statutory rape!
I guess if I was the DA of a state like that, I'd go insane and make statements like the ones quoted too.
Re:Sex (Score:3, Insightful)
My personal opinion, which is almost certainly an extreme one, and not one I expect people to ever take seriously, is that all religions wishing to influence legislation should register as political parties or lobby groups, and lose their religious privilages in the eys of the law. No tax breaks, or selective exemption from libel laws just because you have an imaginary friend. I'm just tired of religion directing our laws. You know the Australian Parliament still recites The Lord's Prayer before every sitting? How the hell am I meant to feel like my views are fairly represented, free from unfair restrictions imposed by beliefs I don't share? Nobody is forcing Christians to undergo stem cell treatments, but they're deciding we can't, all because they've decided their God doesn't like it. Where exactly does it say in the Bible "thou shalt not perform experiments involving genetics or stem cells"?
Australia's problems are a lot more subtle, but no less troublesome for it. In the USA, you have loud mothed politicians espousing their views like this, and clear battle lines can be drawn. Here, politicians find it best to keep their religious motivations quiet (with a few exceptions), and they come up with a dozen "moral" arguments, rather than their religion. Some might think it better, because it looks like they're keeping their religion out of their job, but it doesn't work like that; they just keep their religion out of their speeches, giving the impression of a secret, shadow theocracy (so I exaggerate a little, but not much).
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why contradictory? (Score:3, Insightful)
Teacher's Union.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids are branded as lame if they're still virgins at 12.
You're basically full of shit.
Divorce is rampant.
Irrelevant, because the teenagers aren't married.
Aside from making divorce illegal, which is horrible, the one thing that consistently makes the rate of divorce go down is to raise the age of marriage. I don't think abstinence-only education does that. I rather suspect that it depresses the age of marriage.
Cheating spouses is viewed as not a big deal even though it causes so much harm to children.
You're basically full of shit.
Kids are growing up without any parents because the one they have has to work 3 jobs or both decide they'd rather work than raise their kids.
This has nothing to do with teenage sex ed and very little to do with religion.
Drug abuse and teen pregnancy have skyrocketed.
Guess what reduces teen pregnancy? Contraception.
I'm not telling you not to tell kids to not have sex, because that's a very effective contraceptive too (failures of this method are either user error -- very common -- or rape -- also depressingly common). Nothing -- nothing! -- prevents you from saying both things.
The more available information is on contraception, the less teen pregnancy occurs. I'd give you a cite, but you haven't given any so I assume you're into researching things yourself.
Note that there's other situations where parents do that for kids:
"Don't drink when you're 16, and especially don't get drunk, but for god's sake if you do get drunk, call me and I'll give you a ride home rather than drive yourself."
So, how's that war on religion going?
The straw war you just made up? It's going splendid. I just shot a unicorn with cupid's bow. Unicorn guts EVERYWHERE.
or, we could just use our intelligence... (Score:2, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I am a Christian. //sick of my fellow Christians refusing to talk about sex at home ///really sick of my fellow Christians expecting others to teach their children everything, then getting angry when the child may learn an opposing viewpoint. ////thinks parents should teach their children what they (parents) believe & why, then be open to discussing opposing views. Let the child decide. Encouragement to one side is ok. Forced faith is not faith, just a form of control. /////needs to get off of his slashy soapbox...
If you don't like what the teachers at school are telling your children, then it is YOUR responsibility as a parent to discuss what you think is wrong & why. I am all for sex ed in schools, including the proper use of contraceptives. I also think that such discussions should have already started at home prior to this. IF parents don't want to discuss this at home, they have NO right to bitch about what is taught in schools.
Re:Insanity abounds! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also sex ed that includes condoms is usually, as Christoper Hitchens calls it "ABC education." That means:
Abstinence is the absolute best way to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Of that there is no question. If you don't have sex, you aren't at risk. So, don't have sex casually. If you do have sex...
Be faithful. Stick to monogamous relationships. Don't fool around on your partner. You have far less exposure to STDs when you don't fool around. It isn't bulletproof, but it works pretty well. However no matter what use...
Condoms. If you have sex, and it isn't with your spouse for the purpose of having a kid, use a condom. They aren't 100% at anything, but they are way, way better than nothing. A condom properly used is extremely likely to prevent pregnancy and STD transmission.
I don't think I've EVER heard of a "condoms only" sex ed course. Way back when I was in high school the sex ed course over and over harped on not having sex, on waiting. They gave all kinds of reasons why (good reasons), there was a video with various celebrities talking about why to wait and so on. Now in addition to that there was plenty of instruction and harping on condom use. The message was "Wait to have sex, there's no good reason to do it now and many reasons not to. However, if you do have sex, please, please use a condom. Be smart about it no matter what."
Good idea IMO. It gave abstinence truthfully as the most effective method, but didn't lie about condoms and dealt with the reality that kids were going to have sex. For those that it convinced to wait, wonderful. For those that it didn't (and even for those that it did), it gave them useful information on how to stay as safe as they could.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:3, Insightful)
The age of consent should be set based on the average age that teens become sexually active.
Children can drive a car and shoot a gun at age of 10 years, if not earlier. However it doesn't mean they are smart enough and responsible enough to do it right.
The recent case of that Irish girl who suicided after bullying demonstrates that pretty well. Every teen involved was just not mature enough for things that their bodies were capable of (be it having sex or throwing cans of soft drinks or doing some other assault.)
Re:Insanity abounds! (Score:3, Insightful)
"These children are taught not to engage is sexual activity, but then they are told that sex is safe with a condom. So now little Jimmy may be convinced by his teacher/priest/coach that what they are doing is ok because he/she is going to use a condom.
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard."
You'd be surprised how kids interpret things.
I always taught my son to ignore verbal taunts, but to defend himself against a physical attack -- the old "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" mantra.
Well, he took the notion that "names will never hurt" to heart and started having a very filthy mouth, calling other student's mothers "whores" and worse because "those names can't hurt them, so it's O.K."
Er, oops.
I can very well see children who have been taught they are to bend to every teacher's will when in school to submit to sexual abuse because a condom makes it "safe". But, the problem is the establishment of an authority figure without also establishing the LIMITS on that authority.
Re:Why contradictory? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a guy with an artificial lawn in one town (Glendale, CA).
They have passed an ordinance that says you can't have an artificial lawn anymore.
If he leaves it in, he's in violation.
If he puts in a grass lawn, he will have to water it every day 'till it takes. But, if he waters it every day he will be in violation of the two-day-a-week watering ordinance.
If he waters it two days a week, it will die. If it dies he will be cited for having dead landscaping in his front yard.
Re:I know what the secret plan is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Some fundamentalists seem to at least tacitly recognize that teaching kids about safe sex will reduce the frequency of unplanned pregnancy and STDs, but they don't care. That's not what matters. Instead it's about the morality of the act, not the actual outcome. STDs and pregnancy are bad things that punish the people having sex by subjecting them to various hardships and miseries. The fundamentalists want that to happen, as retribution for an individual's immoral acts. Using a condom is cheating: you can have fun without God holding you accountable during this life on Earth.
In this light abstinence only education is about punishment for what they think you shouldn't have been doing. If you only have sex with your wife in order to procreate then you don't need to know a damned thing about STDs, contraception, or anything beyond a fairly rudimentary lock-and-key theory of operation.
The effect on the life of the kid born due to an unplanned pregnancy is merely collateral damage, but if that child learns from the moral failing of his or her parents, is very pious and prays often, then God will allow the child to succeed. If not, then they might argue, the child deserves what miseries come to him.
I personally find these views repugnant, but I'm not a fundamentalist -- although plenty of people in my family are, and they hold lots of other views I find quite odd or internally inconsistent.
As a pragmatist I'm concerned with the material effects on real people's lives, on this Earth, not the theoretical failings of someone held to an arbitrary moral standard doing what comes naturally in a vacuum of knowledge. To me it's clear that thorough sex ed saves lives, prevents unwanted pregnancies, prevents poverty, and reduces incidence of STDs. More importantly, that actually matters to me.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you were modded funny but you also hit the nail on the head. Religious nutters and other control freaks are not interested in educated kids they are interested in obidient kids
Re:"Religionist?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion/superstition is obvious utter nonsense and need not be treated with respect. The people who believe in superstition are not worthy of the respect of modern humans. Their drivel should not even be in the marketplace of ideas, deserves nothing but scorn and attack, and is a drag on human progress.
I don't treat people who believe in imaginary friends as if their friends are real or their ideas sane. The only people who want religion respected are superstitionists themselves.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] having more responsibility and being more mature.
Indeed many people make that argument, and I believe there is some truth in it; though there are some purely physiological aspects of growth that are hard to accelerate. However I just don't see how it might be possible to revert to earlier versions of the society. Back then children were seen as cheap biological robots; peasants made lots of them, and plugged them into the farm work as early as they could physically do it. Some of that work was harmful to the children, some died early (though who didn't back then?)
I see the same problem in crime. A teenager can become a career criminal by the time the courts see him as an adult. This is also a disconnect between physical ability to do things and the opinion of the society about his status.
So today intellectual maturity is delayed by the society, moved into later and later periods of life. But biological maturity is pretty much the same as it was thousands of years ago. So we get a bunch of young adults who are still legally "children." This means that (a) they are exempt from rules of the adult world, and (b) they are denied the privileges of the adult world. (a) facilitates irresponsible behavior, and (b) limits access to legal help. If that Irish girl was an adult, for example, she'd either quit that school (being free to attend or not) or she'd sue everyone involved; and she could get a concealed carry permit and use it every day. Children, however, are something like property - they are slaves of their parents and their school; they have no choice, they have no control, they have no escape. That's what causes suicides and, IMO, a good share of Columbine style murders.
Even if we suddenly decided that children at age 12 should be declared adults, can we do it? Today's society requires considerably more from its members than a peasants' village back in 1500's. There are far more ways to get into trouble. I don't know what the solution to that might be.
Re:Sex (Score:1, Insightful)
Nice sweeping generalization of 307 million people based on your stereotypes.
French people are, by and large, smelly, frog-eating, socialist, beret-wearing ninnies. Any shirts without horizontal stripes are evil.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Honorable Representative should read her own laws, because it most certainly is a crime for a person to use a condom (properly) if the other party to the condom usage is under 18 (under 16 and it's a felony). If both are under 18, then it is mutual statutory rape under the laws of the fine state of Wisconsin. So yeah, Mrs. Roys, using a condom is a crime for the vast majority of high school students in your state.
That's stupid. It's like saying that using a scarf is illegal, because X number of people use scarves to strangle someone to death.
No, using a condom is not illegal. Having sex may be illegal for people of a certain age, but they don't get charged with an extra crime because they also used a condom. Your logic sucks.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame the Jews. Also, your data looks scrubbed because "born-again" and "agnostic" isn't an objective denomination, and you are missing religions that represent larger portions of the population as compared with atheists. Why clump agnostic with atheist.
Ah, wouldn't that make his point ... oh, I don't know ... stronger :p
... without direct physical contact :D). Also, he's not 'blaming the Jews'. Dunno about agnostic (you may have a point) but "born-again" is definitely an "objective denomination" in the sense that people officially identify with it and the organizations related to it are populous enough and prominent it to make it a religion by itself, quite independent of mainstream Christianity.
:p
That would raise Christians to 51% and lower atheists to something under 21%. Also, his 'missing religions that represent larger portions of the population as compared with atheists' is quite irrelevant. He's probably listing the religious affiliations with the 4 highest divorce rates or something like that (no idea, I can't read minds
In fact, I just saw that I was replying to AC and I raise my hat to you good sir for the quite excellent trolling. That's 5 minutes of my time I'll never get back
Re:Insanity abounds! (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but for one I was taught about "bad touches" long before I was given sex education (which was pretty early) and for two, in my sex-ed class I was told that condoms made you safer from STDs and pregnancy, not sexual assault!
I'm pretty confident that the "bad touches" thing is sex education. It just was age appropriate sex ed for you at the time: You didn't yet need to know about condoms but it was important that you did recognize certain things to be sexual.
I (currently 20 years old male living in Finland) don't recall ever having had "bad touches" sex ed. However, elementary school biology began from human biology when I was on 3rd grade or so (about 10 years old) and that involved the earliest forms of sex education. How do women become pregnant, what happens to boys when they reach teen age, etc... It also included telling us about condoms. None of us felt pressured to have sex because of that, we only snickered at the pictures of nude people, as kids do.
At upper elementary school (7th-9th grade, so about age 13-15) the nature of sex ed changed. We were taught about larger set of contraceptive methods (pills, Intrauterine devices, etc.) and how to actually put a condom on (we had to slide one over a dildo). In addition, the social aspect became involved. We weren't taught absistence but we were taught to say no if we don't feel ready, etc...
I really can't understand what goes through the heads of those american parents who say "We should have the right to not teach our children anything about sex or sexuality until they are 18!". Sexuality is present without that time and I consider not letting kids learn about that to be abuse.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think percentages work like that.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why contradictory? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention being labelled as a 'sex offender', which is a scarlet letter that you can never shake and will destroy ANYONE's future.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
the state should leave it to parents to talk about contraceptives and abstinence
That worked out real well for Bristol Palin, didn't it?
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly in some parts of this country, it's going very very well.