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!
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:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some legislators parents should have used condoms.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Funny)
This is great news for science! (Score:3, Funny)
This is the first verified example of someone traveling through a time warp Space-Time Warp Verified In Wisconsin [slushdot.com]
Scott Southworth is living proof that mini-wormholes exists, that they permit time travel, and that, as scientists suspected, you cannot bring information forward in time.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:4, Interesting)
???
You mean that these effects are caused by religion, or that you think they would be prevented by religion? I can't tell.
I know that *I* see the effects as being caused by religion, and not even all religions, but only by a group who are destructive of society in an attempt to increase the number of followers.
E,g,, I don't blame the Unitarians, the Friends, or the Mennonites (among others). I don't blame any religion that emphasized responsibility more than ignorance and self-control. (N.B.: self-control is a delusion. The ego is not the center of the mind. But blending ignorance with a belief in self-control is a true recipe for disaster.)
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.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html [guttmacher.org]
Teen pregnancy has not skyrocketed. The proportion of non-marital births has increased.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Informative)
Teen pregnancy rates dropped from 1990 to 2005 to the lowest level in decades. Drug abuse rates have actually been decreasing on a gentle slope. Divorce rates have declined from 0.47% of the population in 1991 to 0.37% in 2004.
How's that war on actual facts going?
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Informative)
Drug Use [ncjrs.gov]
Divorce Rates [divorcereform.org]
For those not inclined to RAnyFA - they all agree with the GP.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Interesting)
Religion---------------------% have been divorced
Jewish------------------------30%
Born-again Christians---27%
Other Christians-----------24%
Atheists, Agnostics------21%
Facts suck I know.
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:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think percentages work like that.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Funny)
That would raise Christians to 51%
I don't think percentages work like that.
Ah. Erhm. Well, it's the new Durnstorff method of calculating percentages. Very high math. Very advanced. Um. Yeah.
:p. Guess I better hand in my, ah ... physics degree *blush*. Just one of those days I guess .... *sigh*
:p), the percentage of divorcees in the combined population will be bounded by the 2 individual percentages.
:p)
:p
Oh what's the use? Kill me. Kill me now. Isn't there a delete button on this damn thing? Sheesh. Just hope no one I know sees this
But yeah, you are of course right. It doesn't work that way. In a futile attempt to redeem myself, I sat down and worked it out. If a fraction a of population X is divorced and a fraction b of pop. Y is divorced, and a>=b, then we CAN say that a fraction (b + f) of the total population (X+Y) will be divorced, where f = (a-b)*X/(X+Y) (and f>=0 but <1). The fraction of total divorcees can also be written as (a - g) for g = (a-b)*Y/(Z+Y). Simply put (if I haven't managed to mess this up as well
So, all I can say for sure is that the percentage of divorcees in the combined group of born again c. + other c. MUST be greater than 24% but less than 27%. How much greater depends on the populations (which should have been obvious to me even without the above) in precisely the way shown above. As for the atheists/agnostics, I guess we can't say anything can we? (except that the individual percentages must be between 0 and 100?
Icanhasgeekcard back now?
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Funny)
Icanhasgeekcard back now?
You have displayed proper remorse and demonstrated your understanding of the subject matter. All is forgiven. However, you must still face eight hours of "helpful" replies to your initial post. Your card will be returned when this story drops off the front page.
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:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or in slashdot:
1. Be awesome in the private sector.
2. Don't run for office.(Replace this with ????? for old school fans)
3. Profit!!
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
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:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Funny)
Remember: These are the best legislators we could get. Just imagine the ones that didn't make the cut.
Yeah, they end up working as District Attorneys.
Why contradictory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why contradictory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Teacher's Union.
Re: (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 h
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.
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: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.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Interesting)
IF (and that's a big if) graphic sex ed does lead to greater incidence of sexual activity among kids under the age of consent, then he's probably technically correct.
I do think he's most likely grandstanding for political reasons, though.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 othe
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is patently absurd for two sixteen-year-olds to rape each other.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:5, Funny)
... at the same time. Could be sequential, you know, a revenge rape or something.
Unless, of course, both want to be pitchers and neither wants to be a catcher. And they are fighting over it. Then they could be raping each other at the same time.
It's times like this that I wonder why I was cursed with a vivid imagination.
Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (Score:4, Funny)
I'm going to go bleach my eyes now, and hope I can get it far enough into my brain to stop the images.
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.
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: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: (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 h
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:5, Funny)
No, you see teaching kids how to lock their car door leads to teaching them how to unlock their car door. And once they've learned how to unlock their door, they're bound to learn how to unlock someone else's door. And that's just a short hop over to stealing a car. Clearly all knowledge leads to Bad Things (C). We must keep our kids in total ignorance*. Only then can we be a Great Country!
* Of course, ignorance is bliss. And everyone knows that happiness leads to sin, so we must keep them ignorant and punish them enough so that they're never happy at all. For their own safety, of course.
Re: (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: (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)
Re: (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.
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.
Re:Sex (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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:4, Funny)
They do. You would be surprised in the number of churches that have drive thrus. Where I am it is mostly catholic churches that offer a quick prayer and communion to those who can't be bothered sitting through the entire sermon. I wouldn't be surprised if other denominations had them as well.
Re: (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 si
Re: (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: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:Sex (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sex (Score:4, Interesting)
It's like you're trying to say violence and killing aren't natural human functions.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
You have to remember who originally founded the US in the first place - puritanical religious nutbags.
Utterly false. Nevermind that the timeline is wrong--the first colonists in the US were Corporate profit mongers, not religious refugees, the Puritans were not, well, puritan.
Actual Puritans (as in, Purify the Church of England) were not as sexually repressed as other religious sects that arrived later (as evidenced by their personal letters), so long as the sex occurred within marriage.
Moreover, the political culture of the founding of the US was Deist, not Puritan. Compare John Locke, Thomas Jefferson,
They're going to do it anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Dear Juneau, Wisconsin... (Score:5, Funny)
Just because you share your name with an Alaska city doesn't mean you have to be as dumb as Sarah Palin.
Re:Dear Juneau, Wisconsin... (Score:5, Funny)
Q: What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and her vagina?
A: Only 20% of what comes out of her vagina is retarded.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Q: What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and her vagina?
A: Lipstick.
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: (Score:3)
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)
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]
And so now he thinks sex education is child abuse?
Re:Same guy? (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly it seems he won his $160 back.
http://www.nacua.org/documents/southworth.html [nacua.org]
What an asshole.
Applied skills (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Someone needs a firing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure the guy knows that the odds of a successful prosecution are nil. He's grandstanding for God.
Re:Someone needs a firing... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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!"
EndGame (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
I know what the secret plan is... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
I remember in HS (Score:4, Funny)
Parents wake up (Score:5, Funny)
My daughter annouced to me (Score:4, Interesting)
that she is a 'Nerd In training'.
I have never been happier.
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.
The modern way to keep your kid a virgin. (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always seen the comma there: "Your rights, online". Makes a big difference. But yeah, this is more idle-worth than anything else.
No, I actually think its a good thing. It seems like US really needs this, and I would had been proud of my parents if they would had fight for a more open and sexually aware world for me. The truth is, everyone is going to have sex and 99% of people are going to do it during teenage. There will be problems if they don't know how to do it safely. It's fucking hilarious/sad that a teacher that teaches safety practices is threaten by an arrest to do so.
Re:Why not make it voluntary? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why not make it voluntary? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why not make it voluntary? (Score:4, Informative)
I was going to moderate this thread, but I had to point out that the law is not mandatory at either the school or student level. Schools can choose not to teach sexual education. Parents can opt their children out of it as well. That's why this prosecutor is being so fricking ridiculous. If the legislature, school, and parents decide that this education will help their children, who is this prosecutor to say otherwise? I hope someone sues.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
Re: (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: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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would love to watch this fool try to prove that sex education promotes sexualization of a child much less sexual attacks or whatever.
You might love to see him "prove" that until you remember that in his line of work, "prove" doesn't mean "demonstrate conclusively by scientific evidence," it means "convince 12 citizens of Juneau County Wisconsin."