So you are sure that your local educators are not a concern but some nebulous others are not? What gives with that. What assures you of yours but simulataneously assures you that others can not be assured? I think this is tripe

September 17th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
______

I live in a small and very conservative school district. The administration shares the views of the community. Friends in a large neighboring district have encountered teachers who share details of their lives that cause some concern as to what they might share in an actual discussion of sensitive subjects. I’m terribly sorry if that doesn’t fit your view of the way things are.

upright left Says:

Some people won’t be content to stop at teaching inappropriate contact and the bill leaves that completely open. Anything more than that should be left to the parents, since their views of how much a young child should be told and in what manner may differ from the teacher’s view

—
Who are these people you are afraid of and just what exactly do you think they will teach which will be too far?

September 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
______

I’m sorry my post gave you the impression that I’m afraid of anyone. I thought I had used the word disagree. I’m fairly confident that the educators in my local district are aware that most parents prefer to be the source of information for their young children regarding questions about their bodies and where babies come from. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have that assurance. What I’m concerned that some educators might teach that is too far, is anything beyond what the parents want taught. The easiest way to prevent that is not to teach “sex education” to very young children. Teach them what is appropriate touch and what isn’t and move on.

For those who will surely misconstrue that response to be support for McCain’s dishonest ad, it isn’t.

upright left Says:

Some people won’t be content to stop at teaching inappropriate contact and the bill leaves that completely open. Anything more than that should be left to the parents, since their views of how much a young child should be told and in what manner may differ from the teacher’s view

Yet another instance of an uptight righty deciding that doing nothing is better than risking the hypothetical overstep that someone, somewhere, might commit.

But all of this obscures the disgusting anti-information spin and outright lies that the Right decides to lay on an insignificant state bill in a desperate attempt to reverse the slide of their own ticket.

Pathetic.

September 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
______

Who said do nothing? I agreed with misshusseinmolly regarding the teaching of appropriate touch and that the use of the term “sex education” to describe that isn’t accurate. It’s easy enough to separate that language in the bill from the language authorizing sex education for the children for whom it is appropriate.

The McCain campaign’s use of this issue is dishonest. That doesn’t preclude discussion of related issues.

Some people won’t be content to stop at teaching inappropriate contact and the bill leaves that completely open. Anything more than that should be left to the parents, since their views of how much a young child should be told and in what manner may differ from the teacher’s view

—
Who are these people you are afraid of and just what exactly do you think they will teach which will be too far?

upright left Says:

Some people won’t be content to stop at teaching inappropriate contact and the bill leaves that completely open. Anything more than that should be left to the parents, since their views of how much a young child should be told and in what manner may differ from the teacher’s view

Yet another instance of an uptight righty deciding that doing nothing is better than risking the hypothetical overstep that someone, somewhere, might commit.

But all of this obscures the disgusting anti-information spin and outright lies that the Right decides to lay on an insignificant state bill in a desperate attempt to reverse the slide of their own ticket.

Pathetic.

I think the problem here is calling it “sex education” in the first place. I can’t imagine anybody (except those who are into political spin) opposing the idea of educating five-year-olds on what kind of touching is appropriate, and what they should do if they are being touched in a way that creeps them out. However, this cannot be compared to sex education in the way that most people think of that term (and certainly not “comprehensive sex education”, as charged in McCain’s ad).

September 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
______

Well said.

Here is the problem:

MapleStreet Says:

I was going to point out that kids in kindergarten engage in sex ed. They play “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” they notice each other in the bathroom. They’re curious about the body. So why not nourish this curiosity to teach them age-appropriate information ?
September 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
______

Some people won’t be content to stop at teaching inappropriate contact and the bill leaves that completely open. Anything more than that should be left to the parents, since their views of how much a young child should be told and in what manner may differ from the teacher’s view.

I was going to point out that kids in kindergarten engage in sex ed. They play “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” they notice each other in the bathroom. They’re curious about the body. So why not nourish this curiosity to teach them age-appropriate information ?

That sounds like local control which around these parts is thought to be the shits…

Katy,

I certainly don’t wish to offend you. I apologize, as I obviously have.

I do wish to offend the rightwing/GOP as much as humanly possible, however. If that means getting uglier than they do, going more over the top than they do, count me in.

The predators-related issue was only part of what was a rather broad bill. And, kindergarteners could have been taught much more than that; it was left up to the individual districts.

“Wow, what is going on with Mika. How long is Joe going to allow her to show this independent streak?”

Maybe Joe’s been a little intimidated after her dad was on the other day… of course they still seem to be turning her mic down/off when they can get away with it.

Mitt and his Mormon buddies prefer waiting until the kids reach 12 or 13 and then giving them “on the job training” in sex.

And this is usually with a man two to three times their ages.

They must be some seriously sicko mofos