Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 18, 2014, 04:05:45 PM
-
Here is an example of trying to indoctrinate kids.
Hawaii lawmaker renews fight to end or revise controversial sex ed program
(http://www.hawaiireporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-shot-2014-02-03-at-5.24.19-PM-300x280.png)
INAPPROPRIATE? Bob McDermott doesn’t want his 11-year-old son exposed to Hawaii DOE’S sex education curriculum.
BY MALIA ZIMMERMAN - HONOLULU — State Rep. Bob McDermott, who enrolled his eight children in Hawaii’s public schools, doesn’t want his 11-year-old son exposed to a controversial taxpayer-funded sex education program.
That program is taught in 12 public schools across the state, and the Hawaii Department of Education is planning to expand the curriculum to others.
That’s spurred McDermott to renew his fight to get the program revised or pulled altogether. He’s releasing a 21-page report Monday entitled “The Pono Choices Curriculum: Sexualizing the Innocent” detailing his concerns. He also plans to make a plea to the Hawaii Board of Education at its Tuesday meeting, and hold a legislative briefing Wednesday evening for parents.
The 10-hour program, called Pono Choices (pono is a Hawaiian word that translates to “the right way”), is designed for youth aged 11 to 13. It has been taught to 1,700 Hawaii middle school children through an $800,000 pilot program.
McDermott said the program is “medically inaccurate” and not biology based, and that it teaches children about topics such as anal sex, sex with multiple partners and how to put on a condom — using a cucumber or wooden replica of a penis.
“The program normalizes a homosexual lifestyle and anal sex, while failing to warn students of the extreme dangers of anal sex; it references multiple sex partners, while failing to inform students about the health benefits of monogamy; it fails to warn students about the ineffectiveness of condoms against HPV, herpes, and anal sex; and fails to educate students on the stages of human reproduction,” McDermott said, providing Hawaii Reporter with an early copy of his report.
“Any talk of anal sex — which the curriculum does frequently — is instinctively repulsive for pre-pubescent children. Additionally, calling the anus a genital — as Pono Choices does — is just plain medically wrong,” McDermott said.
Among his other arguments: the curriculum’s definition of oral sex isn’t consistent with the definition commonly found in medical literature, data on condom use and effectiveness is inaccurate with regard to HPV, herpes, and HIV and the curriculum ignores the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s warning regarding the risks of condom use when engaging in anal sex.
NOT THE THREE R’S: McDermott holds up a copy of notes from an 11-year-old student enrolled in the sex education classes in the state’s public schools.
The DOE maintains the program is medically accurate, and points out parents can opt their children out of the program.
Parents are invited to a Pono Choices Parent Night through a letter that’s sent home with their child informing them their child will study teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection prevention as part of health education, the DOE in a statement in mid-December. They also learn how to use a condom as part of the program.
“For any curriculum or lesson that addresses reproductive health, parents have the option of requesting that their child not receive the instruction,” the DOE statement said.
However, McDermott said what parents are told — and students are taught — are very different.
“The parental opt-out forms are woefully inadequate. They lack clarity and transparency by concealing some controversial aspects of the material,” McDermott said.
In November, McDermott requested a copy of the curriculum, which was developed by the University of Hawaii. The DOE and university denied his request for several weeks.
McDermott said DOE spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz told him in an email that the course material wouldn’t be made public, but offered to have the lead researcher “address any questions.”
That researcher, Kelly Robert, told McDermott in a follow-up email: “We are not releasing the curriculum or associated materials to anyone who has not gone through the Pono Choices training.”
WHY ARE YOU SMILING? McDermott said happy faces are used to represent STIs partners can get from one another in the curriculum.
Once he obtained a copy and reviewed it with his staff attorney and others, McDermott felt the curriculum fails to inform children of the exponentially increased risks of male on male anal sex.
“Such omission renders the entire document questionable at best and agenda-driven social engineering at worst,” McDermott said.
The program is also contrary to state law and policies regarding abstinence-based sexual education, McDermott said.
“The curriculum treats sexual activity before the age of 14 as a viable choice, despite the state sexual assault law, which puts the age of consent at 16,” McDermott said.
The DOE maintained in a statement that abstinence is taught, but McDermott said “it is not the central message of the curriculum,” which he said gives a mixed message.
The DOE pulled the program in late November 2013 to review it after parents and some legislators complained, but reinstated the program after two weeks and announced its expansion to other schools.
MONTES: It’s time for the community to fight back
Others share McDermott’s concerns. Senate Minority Leader Sam Slom, R-Hawaii Kai-Diamond Head, agrees that parts of the curriculum aren’t appropriate for middle school students.
Hawaii Republican Assembly, a local conservative organization, issued a statement Monday calling Pono Choices, “Porno Choices” and encouraged parents to attend both the BOE meeting Tuesday and the legislative briefing Wednesday.
“It’s time to fight back,” said organization spokesman Tito Montes.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-lawmaker-renews-fight-to-end-or-revise-controversial-sex-ed-program/123
-
tell him to get over it ::) parents can opt their children out of the program.
-
another non-story :o
-
tell him to get over it ::) parents can opt their children out of the program.
Why is the government in the business of sex education anyway?
-
Why is the government in the business of sex education anyway?
oh for Christ sakes get over the government this or that,the guy doesn't want his kid in it opt out,maybe other parents want their kids to have it.i remember when I had sex education you could opt out if you wanted to and some did no big deal
-
oh for Christ sakes get over the government this or that,the guy doesn't want his kid in it opt out,maybe other parents want their kids to have it.i remember when I had sex education you could opt out if you wanted to and some did no big deal
You didn't answer the question.
-
You didn't answer the question.
because a person like yourself brings the gov. into every topic,i could tell you my dog shit yellow and you would tie it to the gov.
-
because a person like yourself brings the gov. into every topic,i could tell you my dog shit yellow and you would tie it to the gov.
Still didn't answer.
-
because a person like yourself brings the gov. into every topic,i could tell you my dog shit yellow and you would tie it to the gov.
hahah he didnt bring the govt into this topic brainchild the govt inserted itself into the topic.....
-
Doesn't matter if someone can opt out. The program still exists.
-
hahah he didnt bring the govt into this topic brainchild the govt inserted itself into the topic.....
sex ed in schools has been in school for 35 plus years,you don't want your kid in it opt out moron
-
sex ed in schools has been in school for 35 plus years,you don't want your kid in it opt out moron
Can you answer the question?
-
Also, does anyone have an actual link to the 6th grade textbook containing 3-ways and anal sex?
Not a link to the story, but proof he's not exaggerating just a little? Seems very extreme.
-
He is absolutely right about this:
“Any talk of anal sex — which the curriculum does frequently — is instinctively repulsive for pre-pubescent children. Additionally, calling the anus a genital — as Pono Choices does — is just plain medically wrong,” McDermott said.
-
He is absolutely right about this:
“Any talk of anal sex — which the curriculum does frequently — is instinctively repulsive for pre-pubescent children. Additionally, calling the anus a genital — as Pono Choices does — is just plain medically wrong,” McDermott said.
But they can opt out ::)
-
But they can opt out ::)
Certainly doesn't make it any better, or accurate. He's also right about opting out. Parents should opt in to something like this.
-
Doesn't matter if someone can opt out. The program still exists.
yeah probably because the majority of the parents want it. now go cry a river :D
-
Certainly doesn't make it any better, or accurate. He's also right about opting out. Parents should opt in to something like this.
My point was, is it the domain of the government to teach children about sex. I want a rational justification for such a program. All I got was a hissy fit about opting out.
-
hey if everyone opts out the program is gone
-
yeah probably because the majority of the parents want it. now go cry a river :D
How you figure? The parents didn't have anything to do with this policy.
-
How you figure? The parents didn't have anything to do with this policy.
This is the lynch pin of liberal thinking, government knows best.
-
How you figure? The parents didn't have anything to do with this policy.
Insert Quote
hey if everyone opts out the program is gone
-
Insert Quote
hey if everyone opts out the program is gone
Why have the program at all?
-
My point was, is it the domain of the government to teach children about sex. I want a rational justification for such a program. All I got was a hissy fit about opting out.
I know. Was just adding on to what you were saying.
Parents should be responsible for teaching their kids about sex, but I don't have a problem with sex education in schools. I have a big problem with the crap (so to speak) that teaches kids the anus is a genital, promoting homosexual sex, etc.
What this shows, IMO, is that the whole GLBT/gender identity movement isn't just about "marriage equality" or preventing discrimination, it's about indoctrination. That's what a program like this does.
What we're also going to see is that anyone who has a faith-based objection to that kind of lifestyle will be not only considered a "bigot," but will be censored, punished, etc. In fact, we're already seeing that kind of thing happen.
-
Insert Quote
hey if everyone opts out the program is gone
Where did you get the information that the parents wanted this?
-
Why have the program at all?
because some parent aren't comfortable teaching sex ed they would rather have someone else do it
-
because some parent aren't comfortable teaching sex ed they would rather have someone else do it
That's bad parenting and certainly not a valid reason to spend money.
-
Where did you get the information that the parents wanted this?
because some parent aren't comfortable teaching sex ed they would rather have someone else do it
-
because some parent aren't comfortable teaching sex ed they would rather have someone else do it
Not a valid reason. Where is the proof? Link please.
-
because some parent aren't comfortable teaching sex ed they would rather have someone else do it
?? The program was developed by the Department of Education. It nothing to do with whether "the parents wanted this."
-
Not a valid reason. Where is the proof? Link please.
lol not very smart huh
-
lol not very smart huh
No links? So this is just a guess?
-
?? The program was developed by the Department of Education. It nothing to do with whether "the parents wanted this."
if nobody wanted it they would all opt out,what do you think would happen to the program :D :D :D tooooo much
-
if nobody wanted it they would all opt out,what do you think would happen to the program :D :D :D tooooo much
This is a silly answer. You can't justify the program nor can you provide any evidence for your theory about parents wanting the program.
-
This is a silly answer. You can't justify the program nor can you provide any evidence for your theory about parents wanting the program.
I've come to the conclusion you're probably borderline down syndrome,or just a troll
-
here you go corky
WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) Sept 27 - A new national survey shows that sex education classes offered to public high school students are not as lengthy or as comprehensive as most parents think they should be.
It also shows that teaching sexual abstinence until marriage remains at the top of parents' sex education priorities. At the same time, the majority of parents also want their children to get more instruction about sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and how to communicate with partners.
"The results in their entirety challenge both sides in the [sex education] debate to rethink their positions on [education] in the public schools," said Steven Rabin, senior vice president of media and public education for the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation, which conducted the survey.
Kaiser produced the results from telephone interviews with a nationwide sample of some 1500 students in the 7th to 12th grades and their parents, and 1000 public school sex education teachers from those grades. Over 300 public school principals were also surveyed.
Overall 89% of students reported having at least some sex education classes at school by the 11th or 12th grade.
Nearly all parents said that sex education classes should encourage teens to wait until they are married until having sex. But two-thirds said that the overall message to teens should be to wait to have sex, but use birth control and safe sex practice if they do not wait.
At the same time, at least 75% of parents said that classes should cover a wide range of other topics, including homosexuality, abortion, proper condom use, and how to get tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
"Parents, simply put, want it all," said Tina Hoff, a Kaiser researcher who conducted the study. But few sex education classes seem long enough to cover all the topics parents want their kids to know about, Hoff added. Three quarters of the teachers said that their most recent sex education course lasted one or several class periods; in contrast, three quarters of parents said it should last half a semester or more.
Shorter classes may be leaving out many topics that parents think are important. While 97% of parents reported wanting sex education classes to instruct kids on what to do if they are raped, only 59% of teens said that their classes had broached the topic. Similar gaps in parents' priorities and kids' experiences were seen in areas of homosexuality and how to talk with parents and partners about sex. "Parents are looking for real-life skills to be taught in the classroom," Hoff said.
The survey also seemed to uncover gaps between the models that schools are supposed to be using for sex education and what students are actually picking up in class. While one third of teachers and principals said that the main message of their sex education classes was "abstinence only," only 18% of students said that they had received an abstinence-only message at school.
Those numbers could mean that students who ask questions about sexual intercourse or contraception in class often get those questions answered, even by teachers mandated to teach only abstinence, said Dr. Ramon Cortines, a former New York City Schools Chancellor who was on hand when reporters were briefed on the study today.
"When the doors are closed in that classroom its hard to know what is really going on" between teachers and students, he said.
-
I've come to the conclusion you're probably borderline down syndrome,or just a troll
Much like your other conclusions it isn't based in fact. You haven't backed up any of your claims. Instead you throw out insults when you're trapped in a corner.
-
here you go corky
WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) Sept 27 - A new national survey shows that sex education classes offered to public high school students are not as lengthy or as comprehensive as most parents think they should be.
It also shows that teaching sexual abstinence until marriage remains at the top of parents' sex education priorities. At the same time, the majority of parents also want their children to get more instruction about sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and how to communicate with partners.
"The results in their entirety challenge both sides in the [sex education] debate to rethink their positions on [education] in the public schools," said Steven Rabin, senior vice president of media and public education for the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation, which conducted the survey.
Kaiser produced the results from telephone interviews with a nationwide sample of some 1500 students in the 7th to 12th grades and their parents, and 1000 public school sex education teachers from those grades. Over 300 public school principals were also surveyed.
Overall 89% of students reported having at least some sex education classes at school by the 11th or 12th grade.
Nearly all parents said that sex education classes should encourage teens to wait until they are married until having sex. But two-thirds said that the overall message to teens should be to wait to have sex, but use birth control and safe sex practice if they do not wait.
At the same time, at least 75% of parents said that classes should cover a wide range of other topics, including homosexuality, abortion, proper condom use, and how to get tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
"Parents, simply put, want it all," said Tina Hoff, a Kaiser researcher who conducted the study. But few sex education classes seem long enough to cover all the topics parents want their kids to know about, Hoff added. Three quarters of the teachers said that their most recent sex education course lasted one or several class periods; in contrast, three quarters of parents said it should last half a semester or more.
Shorter classes may be leaving out many topics that parents think are important. While 97% of parents reported wanting sex education classes to instruct kids on what to do if they are raped, only 59% of teens said that their classes had broached the topic. Similar gaps in parents' priorities and kids' experiences were seen in areas of homosexuality and how to talk with parents and partners about sex. "Parents are looking for real-life skills to be taught in the classroom," Hoff said.
The survey also seemed to uncover gaps between the models that schools are supposed to be using for sex education and what students are actually picking up in class. While one third of teachers and principals said that the main message of their sex education classes was "abstinence only," only 18% of students said that they had received an abstinence-only message at school.
Those numbers could mean that students who ask questions about sexual intercourse or contraception in class often get those questions answered, even by teachers mandated to teach only abstinence, said Dr. Ramon Cortines, a former New York City Schools Chancellor who was on hand when reporters were briefed on the study today.
"When the doors are closed in that classroom its hard to know what is really going on" between teachers and students, he said.
-
here you go corky
WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) Sept 27 - A new national survey shows that sex education classes offered to public high school students are not as lengthy or as comprehensive as most parents think they should be.
It also shows that teaching sexual abstinence until marriage remains at the top of parents' sex education priorities. At the same time, the majority of parents also want their children to get more instruction about sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and how to communicate with partners.
"The results in their entirety challenge both sides in the [sex education] debate to rethink their positions on [education] in the public schools," said Steven Rabin, senior vice president of media and public education for the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation, which conducted the survey.
Kaiser produced the results from telephone interviews with a nationwide sample of some 1500 students in the 7th to 12th grades and their parents, and 1000 public school sex education teachers from those grades. Over 300 public school principals were also surveyed.
Overall 89% of students reported having at least some sex education classes at school by the 11th or 12th grade.
Nearly all parents said that sex education classes should encourage teens to wait until they are married until having sex. But two-thirds said that the overall message to teens should be to wait to have sex, but use birth control and safe sex practice if they do not wait.
At the same time, at least 75% of parents said that classes should cover a wide range of other topics, including homosexuality, abortion, proper condom use, and how to get tested for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
"Parents, simply put, want it all," said Tina Hoff, a Kaiser researcher who conducted the study. But few sex education classes seem long enough to cover all the topics parents want their kids to know about, Hoff added. Three quarters of the teachers said that their most recent sex education course lasted one or several class periods; in contrast, three quarters of parents said it should last half a semester or more.
Shorter classes may be leaving out many topics that parents think are important. While 97% of parents reported wanting sex education classes to instruct kids on what to do if they are raped, only 59% of teens said that their classes had broached the topic. Similar gaps in parents' priorities and kids' experiences were seen in areas of homosexuality and how to talk with parents and partners about sex. "Parents are looking for real-life skills to be taught in the classroom," Hoff said.
The survey also seemed to uncover gaps between the models that schools are supposed to be using for sex education and what students are actually picking up in class. While one third of teachers and principals said that the main message of their sex education classes was "abstinence only," only 18% of students said that they had received an abstinence-only message at school.
Those numbers could mean that students who ask questions about sexual intercourse or contraception in class often get those questions answered, even by teachers mandated to teach only abstinence, said Dr. Ramon Cortines, a former New York City Schools Chancellor who was on hand when reporters were briefed on the study today.
"When the doors are closed in that classroom its hard to know what is really going on" between teachers and students, he said.
This doesn't prove the parents wanted it in the first place. Mods he also didn't provide a link
-
LOL YOUR RIGHT YOUR NOT BORDERLINE :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
BB, you live in Hawaii so maybe you can answer this:
Are kids (11 - 13) doing a lot of boom-boom there to your knowledge? (Do you see super young-looking girls pushing strollers and the like?)
-
LOL YOUR RIGHT YOUR NOT BORDERLINE :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Still, your post didn't back up your claim.
-
Still, your post didn't back up your claim.
you know what your on here all the time and now 333386 is hardly on here I think 2+2=4 ;D
-
Here is an example of trying to indoctrinate kids.
Hawaii lawmaker renews fight to end or revise controversial sex ed program
(http://www.hawaiireporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-shot-2014-02-03-at-5.24.19-PM-300x280.png)
INAPPROPRIATE? Bob McDermott doesn’t want his 11-year-old son exposed to Hawaii DOE’S sex education curriculum.
...
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/hawaii-lawmaker-renews-fight-to-end-or-revise-controversial-sex-ed-program/123
Let me just get this inappropriate comment out of the way:
That pic looks like a gay pedophile with a photo of his next target. It says the guy has 8 kids (8!). Wonder if anyone has investigated Mr. McLibido about whether he doesn't want his kids to have any sex ed. because it'd give them an alternate way to describe "daddy's private funtime"?
Just a creepy thought that's probably out of the question since publicity would be the last thing a guy like that would want.
-
BB, you live in Hawaii so maybe you can answer this:
Are kids (11 - 13) doing a lot of boom-boom there to your knowledge? (Do you see super young-looking girls pushing strollers and the like?)
Yes, some kids as young as 13 are sexually active. No, I don't see any of them pushing strollers.
One hundred percent of the girls having sex under the age of 16 are incapable of consenting to sex.
-
you know what your on here all the time and now 333386 is hardly on here I think 2+2=4 ;D
Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between your and you're. Again, you can't back up your claims.
-
Let me just get this inappropriate comment out of the way:
That pic looks like a gay pedophile with a photo of his next target. It says the guy has 8 kids (8!). Wonder if anyone has investigated Mr. McLibido about whether he doesn't want his kids to have any sex ed. because it'd give them an alternate way to describe "daddy's private funtime"?
Just a creepy thought that's probably out of the question since publicity would be the last thing a guy like that would want.
::)
He's just a retired Marine, with an MBA, member of the State House of Representatives, married to the same woman for 25 years.
Pretty idiotic thing to say.
-
Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between your and you're. Again, you can't back up your claims.
lol I think I'm right
-
lol I think I'm right
You think a lot of things that aren't based in reality.
-
You think a lot of things that aren't based in reality.
hahaha so true
-
hahaha so true
did you tell him you were a judo champ to try to impress him,nevermind 333386 already knows this :D :D :D
-
did you tell him you were a judo champ to try to impress him,nevermind 333386 already knows this :D :D :D
You have a really hard time staying on topic. You can't even answer a question.
-
This doesn't prove the parents wanted it in the first place. Mods he also didn't provide a link
Oh, my fault. ;)
Here's the link: http://cig.salk.edu/extra_html/sex_and_school.html (http://cig.salk.edu/extra_html/sex_and_school.html)
-
Oh, my fault. ;)
Here's the link: http://cig.salk.edu/extra_html/sex_and_school.html (http://cig.salk.edu/extra_html/sex_and_school.html)
So you're blacken?
-
This is the lynch pin of liberal thinking, government knows best.
Dammit! I thought you were more wrong about this:
Spelling
Linchpin vs. lynchpin
Linchpin is the usual spelling of the noun referring to (1) a central cohesive element, or (2) a locking pin inserted in the end of a shaft to prevent a wheel from slipping off. The word derives from the Middle English linspin, which in turn derives from Old English elements. Although lynchpin is a somewhat common variant, its first syllable’s association with the unrelated verb lynch perhaps counts against it.
Oh, and don't let me forget this, lol: http://grammarist.com/spelling/linchpin-lynchpin/ (http://grammarist.com/spelling/linchpin-lynchpin/)
-
Yes, some kids as young as 13 are sexually active. No, I don't see any of them pushing strollers.
One hundred percent of the girls having sex under the age of 16 are incapable of consenting to sex.
I understand about the legally being able to consent thing. I'm just wondering, consent or not, if there's a pregnancy rate at which people normally against school sex-ed would be for it in the hopes that knowledge about contraception (almost wrote "conception" - which would have maybe fit, too, lol) would help curtail pregnancy. Cuz getting young folks to simply abstain is not likely to work, I don't think.
Fighting basic biological instincts is likely to be a losing battle for many unless you used some kind of hormonal treatment. Or kept 'em in cages, maybe.
-
Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between your and you're. Again, you can't back up your claims.
Awwww, don't they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? lol
-
::)
He's just a retired Marine, with an MBA, member of the State House of Representatives, married to the same woman for 25 years.
Pretty idiotic thing to say.
Strictly speaking, none of that means he isn't a gay pedophile.
Still, it's idiotic to say, I admit.
Picture DOES look creepy, though.
-
So you're blacken?
Racist post.
Just wait until Ron hears about this. :D
-
Racist post.
Just wait until Ron hears about this. :D
You've all but admitted it. So you go around making idiotic statements and created a gimmick to back you up. You are mental
-
You've all but admitted it. So you go around making idiotic statements and created a gimmick to back you up. You are mental
Months ago I called him the board's retard.
I am correct.
-
Months ago I called him the board's retard.
I am correct.
darioIQ73 mr fake Christian,and the board bigot :D :D :D :D :D :D
I am correct.
-
Months ago I called him the board's retard.
I am correct.
Dude, you call a lot of people names.
It doesn't mean a whole lot about anyone but you.
-
I understand about the legally being able to consent thing. I'm just wondering, consent or not, if there's a pregnancy rate at which people normally against school sex-ed would be for it in the hopes that knowledge about contraception (almost wrote "conception" - which would have maybe fit, too, lol) would help curtail pregnancy. Cuz getting young folks to simply abstain is not likely to work, I don't think.
Fighting basic biological instincts is likely to be a losing battle for many unless you used some kind of hormonal treatment. Or kept 'em in cages, maybe.
The only thing we should be teaching kids from 11-13 (your window) regarding whether or not to engage in sexual activity is to abstain. They need to learn the nuts (so to speak) and bolts of sex, etc., but no 11 year old kid needs to learn how to use a condom or be told that a butt hole is actually a genital, etc.
-
Strictly speaking, none of that means he isn't a gay pedophile.
Still, it's idiotic to say, I admit.
Picture DOES look creepy, though.
No it doesn't. ::)
-
The only thing we should be teaching kids from 11-13 (your window) regarding whether or not to engage in sexual activity is to abstain. They need to learn the nuts (so to speak) and bolts of sex, etc., but no 11 year old kid needs to learn how to use a condom or be told that a butt hole is actually a genital, etc.
Before the bursting-at-the-seams-with-porn internet became so popular, I'd have probably agreed with you about trying to tell kids to abstain. Now, I'm not so sure...
Good parents will be trying to use some kind of parental blocking apps or other restrictions for their computers at home but I'm sure lots aren't.
Also, I'd bet that ways to get around that kind of thing are passed around from horny boy to horny boy with a quickness. In my day, many 10 - 12 year olds had stashes of Playboy and Hustler mags -- which are practically puritanical compared with a lot of internet porn today.
I'm not sure how prevalent young teen pregnancy is, but among today's youth, education for 7th-graders (who are 12 and 13 years old, typically) about correct condom use seems like it'd be a beneficial thing for almost everyone.
-
Before the bursting-at-the-seams-with-porn internet became so popular, I'd have probably agreed with you about trying to tell kids to abstain. Now, I'm not so sure...
Good parents will be trying to use some kind of parental blocking apps or other restrictions for their computers at home but I'm sure lots aren't.
Also, I'd bet that ways to get around that kind of thing are passed around from horny boy to horny boy with a quickness. In my day, many 10 - 12 year olds had stashes of Playboy and Hustler mags -- which are practically puritanical compared with a lot of internet porn today.
I'm not sure how prevalent young teen pregnancy is, but among today's youth, education for 7th-graders (who are 12 and 13 years old, typically) about correct condom use seems like it'd be a beneficial thing for almost everyone.
I agree porn is everyone. That doesn't change the fact that 11 and 12 year old kids should not be having sex. It's irresponsible to teach those kids how to have sex, including homosexual sex. And teaching kids that young how to use condoms, etc.--in addition to sending a mixed message--will not do squat to keep them from being sexually active.
-
Abstinence only LOL
-
A Whole Lot Of Pono Madness
Posted on February 19, 2014
by Larry Price
After state Rep. Bob Mc-Dermott released his report critical of Pono Choice, a proposed state Department of Education sex-education program, I thought the public discussion of sex education was over.
Then I received a bulletin from UH-Manoa’s Health Promotion Office that it would be hosting its annual Valentine’s Day Condom Fair, which includes games and prizes.
I couldn’t believe it. Educational activities include a condom race and games like “Pin the Condom on Jack.” How creative, eh? Of course, I went to school in the ’60s, so it’s not surprising that I’m surprised. The most exciting thing we had at UH back then was the Ka Palapala beauty contest at Hemenway Hall. No one mentioned the relation of sex to beauty.
I guess it just goes to show how things have changed over the years, like talking openly about the pros and cons of oral and anal sex. I guess it’s acceptable, if it’s all designed to educate students about healthy sexual relationships.
It all seems strange to me because most quality institutions of higher learning are more interested in research or medical discoveries to ease suffering in the world.
Additionally, Valentine’s Day is usually thought of as celebrating love. It’s not something achieved in one day and takes a lot of thought over a prolonged period of time.
I just can’t imagine UH having a condom fair. It doesn’t appear to fit with the university’s mission. Furthermore, I can’t imagine the UH Regents discussing the topic publicly. It’s a tough topic to discuss, and when you read about how difficult it is to find a UH president, it makes you wonder if they know what kind of pono is happening on campus.
http://www.midweek.com/whole-lot-pono-madness/
-
I agree porn is everyone. That doesn't change the fact that 11 and 12 year old kids should not be having sex. It's irresponsible to teach those kids how to have sex, including homosexual sex. And teaching kids that young how to use condoms, etc.--in addition to sending a mixed message--will not do squat to keep them from being sexually active.
So the debate seems to really hinge upon two questions:
- Does a lack of education about certain sex practices including proper condom use do anything significant to keep kids from being sexually active?
- Which is more important?: To try to discourage sexual activity or to try to address issues (with serious, measurable societal costs) like the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy?
I remember my middle-school years well. I didn't give a flip about what anyone said about whether they thought it was OK to have sex as an 11-year old, I was intent on going as far as possible with the girls I liked.
Sexually suggestive imagery was everywhere in our society when I was young and is even more ubiquitous now so what kids learn about sex as part of their school curriculum barely matters as a way of discouraging sexual activity, if you ask me. Sex education centered around condom use (and maybe child support issues, haha) seems like it would be successful as a way to control diseases and teen pregnancy, though.
If you want to discourage sexual activity among kids, teaching girls about how to deal with male arguments like "If you love me, you'll let me" would be probably be more effective for that, lol.
-
:D :D
-
So the debate seems to really hinge upon two questions:
- Does a lack of education about certain sex practices including proper condom use do anything significant to keep kids from being sexually active?
- Which is more important?: To try to discourage sexual activity or to try to address issues (with serious, measurable societal costs) like the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy?
I remember my middle-school years well. I didn't give a flip about what anyone said about whether they thought it was OK to have sex as an 11-year old, I was intent on going as far as possible with the girls I liked.
Sexually suggestive imagery was everywhere in our society when I was young and is even more ubiquitous now so what kids learn about sex as part of their school curriculum barely matters as a way of discouraging sexual activity, if you ask me. Sex education centered around condom use (and maybe child support issues, haha) seems like it would be successful as a way to control diseases and teen pregnancy, though.
If you want to discourage sexual activity among kids, teaching girls about how to deal with male arguments like "If you love me, you'll let me" would be probably be more effective for that, lol.
Those might be your questions, but I see it differently: should we do anything to promote or encourage kids to have sex at the ages of 11 and 12? I think the answer is clearly no. Many of them have not reached puberty. The ones who have are in no way, shape, or form ready to be parents. One hundred percent of them cannot consent to sex, so any sexual activity they engage in involves a crime of some sort.
We cannot prevent kids from being promiscuous. A lot of them are going to do whatever they want. But in terms of public policy, we should only be doing things that promote healthy and legal activity for kids.
-
Those might be your questions, but I see it differently: should we do anything to promote or encourage kids to have sex at the ages of 11 and 12? I think the answer is clearly no. Many of them have not reached puberty. The ones who have are in no way, shape, or form ready to be parents. One hundred percent of them cannot consent to sex, so any sexual activity they engage in involves a crime of some sort.
We cannot prevent kids from being promiscuous. A lot of them are going to do whatever they want. But in terms of public policy, we should only be doing things that promote healthy and legal activity for kids.
so I guess by your standards we just hide the precautions, great idea
-
so I guess by your standards we just hide the precautions, great idea
Not teaching an 11 year old kid how to be a butt pirate isn't hiding precautions. Nothing is hidden in the information age.
-
so I guess the only thing that is taught in that class is anal sex ::)
-
so I guess the only thing that is taught in that class is anal sex ::)
Yes, that's exactly what I said. ::)
-
post a link to show that's all they teach in that sex class
-
post a link to show that's all they teach in that sex class
That's not all they teach in that class. Read the first post in this thread.
-
Those might be your questions, but I see it differently: should we do anything to promote or encourage kids to have sex at the ages of 11 and 12? I think the answer is clearly no. Many of them have not reached puberty. The ones who have are in no way, shape, or form ready to be parents. One hundred percent of them cannot consent to sex, so any sexual activity they engage in involves a crime of some sort.
We cannot prevent kids from being promiscuous. A lot of them are going to do whatever they want. But in terms of public policy, we should only be doing things that promote healthy and legal activity for kids.
Are you Thai?
I kid, but you seem more concerned about appearances ("face", to a Thai) than finding effective solutions to important problems.
This seems foolhardy and doomed to failure, imo.
Especially since parents that object can always have their kids opt out. (I would not take away that option.)
-
that's all you seem to bring up,what is it a fascination ;D
-
PIITB.
-
Are you Thai?
I kid, but you seem more concerned about appearances ("face", to a Thai) than finding effective solutions to important problems.
This seems foolhardy and doomed to failure, imo.
Especially since parents that object can always have their kids opt out. (I would not take away that option.)
I didn't say anything about appearances. I talked specifically about what kinds of things we should be teaching as part of public policy.
I agree with McDermott that parents should opt in, not out.
-
I didn't say anything about appearances. I talked specifically about what kinds of things we should be teaching as part of public policy.
I agree with McDermott that parents should opt in, not out.
If you're not concerned with appearances, then why do you care about trying to teach abstention? Do you seriously think it's effective? (Or even can be effective?) Hormones are more powerful than logic, mang. Everyone on this board should know a little something about that.
I think I might agree with you (and the scary-looking dad) about opting in, though. Doesn't sound so bad to me.
-
If you're not concerned with appearances, then why do you care about trying to teach abstention? Do you seriously think it's effective? (Or even can be effective?) Hormones are more powerful than logic, mang. Everyone on this board should know a little something about that.
I think I might agree with you (and the scary-looking dad) about opting in, though. Doesn't sound so bad to me.
For the reasons I've already stated about why kids that age cannot make babies, too young to be parents, crime, etc.
I don't think any method is 100 percent effective. I just believe that, from a policy standpoint, we should be doing the right thing.
-
PIITB.
Eddie Murphy, is that you?
Am I dirty for what I think that means? lol
-
For the reasons I've already stated about why kids that age cannot make babies, too young to be parents, crime, etc.
I don't think any method is 100 percent effective. I just believe that, from a policy standpoint, we should be doing the right thing.
Screw what we "should be doing". I live in the real world. Color me more pragmatic than you, I guess.
And you're edging in disingenuous territory when you mention "100% effective", aren't you?
100% effective and the idea of abstention shouldn't even be in the same zip code, imo.
Off the top of your head, what percentage of "effectiveness" (if it were possible to accurately measure such a thing) would be low enough for you to ditch the idea of trying to teach abstention? (I'm very curious to see if you give ANY number as an answer here.)
This dogged insistence on clinging to the idea that abstention teaching is worthwhile isn't related to your religious beliefs, is it?
You know, the reason why Thailand (hooker central) is doing much better with respect to HIV prevention than other countries that have similar levels of sexual activity is because of their promotion of 100% condom usage (which started in the early 90's). http://std.about.com/od/prevention/a/thai100condom.htm (http://std.about.com/od/prevention/a/thai100condom.htm)
I'd be pretty damn surprised if this sort of program would have gotten off the ground in such a big way in a Christian country. Score one for the Buddhists, I guess.
-
Screw what we "should be doing". I live in the real world. Color me more pragmatic than you, I guess.
And you're edging in disingenuous territory when you mention "100% effective", aren't you?
100% effective and the idea of abstention shouldn't even be in the same zip code, imo.
Off the top of your head, what percentage of "effectiveness" (if it were possible to accurately measure such a thing) would be low enough for you to ditch the idea of trying to teach abstention? (I'm very curious to see if you give ANY number as an answer here.)
This dogged insistence on clinging to the idea that abstention teaching is worthwhile isn't related to your religious beliefs, is it?
You know, the reason why Thailand (hooker central) is doing much better with respect to HIV prevention than other countries that have similar levels of sexual activity is because of their promotion of 100% condom usage (which started in the early 90's). http://std.about.com/od/prevention/a/thai100condom.htm (http://std.about.com/od/prevention/a/thai100condom.htm)
I'd be pretty damn surprised if this sort of program would have gotten off the ground in such a big way in a Christian country. Score one for the Buddhists, I guess.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe we should start teaching kids how to engage in reckless and illegal behavior "safely," just because it's inevitable that some of them (or even a lot of them) will do it.
I haven't thought about any percentages.
What I do know is that kids are going to have sex. And they're going to have unprotected sex. I've always maintained that condoms don't work, for the simple reason that kids will not consistently use. Either I or someone else posted an article on here years ago that supported my theory. So teaching little kids how to use condoms isn't really going to stop the spread of STDs or pregnancy IMO.
And no, my religious beliefs don't have anything to with my views on what is best for kids. You're not one of those paranoid anti-religious extremists are you?
-
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe we should start teaching kids how to engage in reckless and illegal behavior "safely," just because it's inevitable that some of them (or even a lot of them) will do it.
I haven't thought about any percentages.
What I do know is that kids are going to have sex. And they're going to have unprotected sex. I've always maintained that condoms don't work, for the simple reason that kids will not consistently use. Either I or someone else posted an article on here years ago that supported my theory. So teaching little kids how to use condoms isn't really going to stop the spread of STDs or pregnancy IMO.
And no, my religious beliefs don't have anything to with my views on what is best for kids. You're not one of those paranoid anti-religious extremists are you?
Just shocking that you wouldn't answer the percentage question, ya semi-shady debater you. ;) Didn't see that one coming, lol.
Re: not being in favor of teaching kids about condoms because it won't work while trying to teach 'em to abstain from sex in the same post where you make admissions about the inevitability of them having sex sets off my spider sense (or whatever) because it doesn't seem like it makes sense.
Unless your point is nothing will work anyway so let's just keep up appearances by saying we're against kid sex.
BTW, simply teaching them about condom use is of course not going to work unless they also have easy access to condoms. So if there's a study that tells of both of those conditions existing (how and why to use condoms AND easy access to condoms) and yet the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy did not go down, then I'd be very surprised. (Because what happened in Thailand completely contradicts this.)
I AM anti-religion. I was forced to attend Catholic church for too long to let that go easily. I don't think I'm so paranoid or extreme about it, but those are pretty subjective terms, so others might think so.
-
Just shocking that you wouldn't answer the percentage question, ya semi-shady debater you. ;) Didn't see that one coming, lol.
Re: not being in favor of teaching kids about condoms because it won't work while trying to teach 'em to abstain from sex in the same post where you make admissions about the inevitability of them having sex sets off my spider sense (or whatever) because it doesn't seem like it makes sense.
Unless your point is nothing will work anyway so let's just keep up appearances by saying we're against kid sex.
BTW, simply teaching them about condom use is of course not going to work unless they also have easy access to condoms. So if there's a study that tells of both of those conditions existing (how and why to use condoms AND easy access to condoms) and yet the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy did not go down, then I'd be very surprised. (Because what happened in Thailand completely contradicts this.)
I AM anti-religion. I was forced to attend Catholic church for too long to let that go easily. I don't think I'm so paranoid or extreme about it, but those are pretty subjective terms, so others might think so.
Nothing shady about my failure to think about things in your head. That's your issue, not mine. :)
I don't think we should be teaching an 11 year old about condoms for a variety of reasons (that I've already stated), not just because they don't work. And access isn't even remotely an issue. There are TV commercials about them. They're all over the internet. They are cheap. Don't require an ID to purchase. They're available for free at some clinics. Not exactly a secret.
My point isn't that nothing works. My point is, again, that from a policy standpoint, our schools (i.e., the government) should only be promoting and teaching things are healthy and legal for kids, and not teach or promote anything that is reckless and/or illegal.
-
Teaching the mechanics of human sexuality is a natural part of any biology class. Teaching sexual habits and lifestyles is not.
-
Teaching the mechanics of human sexuality is a natural part of any biology class. Teaching sexual habits and lifestyles is not.
Agree.
-
Nothing shady about my failure to think about things in your head. That's your issue, not mine. :)
I don't think we should be teaching an 11 year old about condoms for a variety of reasons (that I've already stated), not just because they don't work. And access isn't even remotely an issue. There are TV commercials about them. They're all over the internet. They are cheap. Don't require an ID to purchase. They're available for free at some clinics. Not exactly a secret.
My point isn't that nothing works. My point is, again, that from a policy standpoint, our schools (i.e., the government) should only be promoting and teaching things are healthy and legal for kids, and not teach or promote anything that is reckless and/or illegal.
what the hell you talking about condoms don't work,what do you do just make shit up
-
Nothing shady about my failure to think about things in your head. That's your issue, not mine. :)
I don't think we should be teaching an 11 year old about condoms for a variety of reasons (that I've already stated), not just because they don't work. And access isn't even remotely an issue. There are TV commercials about them. They're all over the internet. They are cheap. Don't require an ID to purchase. They're available for free at some clinics. Not exactly a secret.
My point isn't that nothing works. My point is, again, that from a policy standpoint, our schools (i.e., the government) should only be promoting and teaching things are healthy and legal for kids, and not teach or promote anything that is reckless and/or illegal.
Uh, the dodging of questions by simply saying, "Oh, I haven't thought about that" is a little bit shady in my mind. Refusal to answer for some other reasons I can think of isn't shady, but the way you did it was. But whateva (especially since it should be pretty clear that I predicted you wouldn't answer that when I asked it. lol).
And, if we're talking about the accessibility of condoms for young teens (and NOT for you or me), they aren't easily accessible unless they're being given away at places where young people would find themselves.
So, I'm wondering, how serious a legal offense is it to you when 11- to 13-year olds of roughly the same age have sex with each other? Is it so serious that you'd choose not to tell them how to minimize the potential destructive results of this illegal act (that is "inevitable" in your words) should they do it anyway? If you truly think this way I would say that you don't care enough about the kids or society as a whole, then.
Provide an EFFECTIVE (but humane - no chastity belts, emasculating drugs, or cages, please) method of getting youngsters to abstain and I might agree with your stance. Absent an effective method, your "solution" to this issue and it's resultant problems is pretty much just for show and won't help a darn thing except for the consciences of the more simple-minded among parents and educators.
Those kids are gonna keep trampling your lawn until you stop wasting your time yelling and instead find a solution that's actually effective.
BTW, you must be against needle exchange programs, too, right?
-
what the hell you talking about condoms don't work,what do you do just make shit up
Go back and read my posts. I explained why.
-
Uh, the dodging of questions by simply saying, "Oh, I haven't thought about that" is a little bit shady in my mind. Refusal to answer for some other reasons I can think of isn't shady, but the way you did it was. But whateva (especially since it should be pretty clear that I predicted you wouldn't answer that when I asked it. lol).
And, if we're talking about the accessibility of condoms for young teens (and NOT for you or me), they aren't easily accessible unless they're being given away at places where young people would find themselves.
So, I'm wondering, how serious a legal offense is it to you when 11- to 13-year olds of roughly the same age have sex with each other? Is it so serious that you'd choose not to tell them how to minimize the potential destructive results of this illegal act (that is "inevitable" in your words) should they do it anyway? If you truly think this way I would say that you don't care enough about the kids or society as a whole, then.
Provide an EFFECTIVE (but humane - no chastity belts, emasculating drugs, or cages, please) method of getting youngsters to abstain and I might agree with your stance. Absent an effective method, your "solution" to this issue and it's resultant problems is pretty much just for show and won't help a darn thing except for the consciences of the more simple-minded among parents and educators.
Those kids are gonna keep trampling your lawn until you stop wasting your time yelling and instead find a solution that's actually effective.
BTW, you must be against needle exchange programs, too, right?
If I don't feel like thinking about something you brought up, then I'm probably not going to do so. You have that freedom too. Nobody is under the gun to answer any question or think about anything they don't want to. Nothing shady about that. That's a pretty weird use of the word.
I think your logic is flawed. We should teach an 11 year old how to use a condom because it's inevitable that he or she might have sex? Because it's inevitable that some (or even a lot) of kids will shoplift at least once in their youth, should we also teach them how to do it more efficiently so they don't get arrested?
I think what you're missing is kids need to be taught about sex. They need to be taught about how the body works. They need to know where babies come from, etc. They also need to be given guidance on when it's appropriate for them to have sex. If we do that, then at the same time tell them how to use condoms, etc., we're speaking out of both sides of our mouth.
I think parents need to make decisions about what to teach their kids and at what ages to teach them. But the government? It should only promote what is safe, responsible, and legal.
-
If I don't feel like thinking about something you brought up, then I'm probably not going to do so. You have that freedom too. Nobody is under the gun to answer any question or think about anything they don't want to. Nothing shady about that. That's a pretty weird use of the word.
I think your logic is flawed. We should teach an 11 year old how to use a condom because it's inevitable that he or she might have sex? Because it's inevitable that some (or even a lot) of kids will shoplift at least once in their youth, should we also teach them how to do it more efficiently so they don't get arrested?
I think what you're missing is kids need to be taught about sex. They need to be taught about how the body works. They need to know where babies come from, etc. They also need to be given guidance on when it's appropriate for them to have sex. If we do that, then at the same time tell them how to use condoms, etc., we're speaking out of both sides of our mouth.
I think parents need to make decisions about what to teach their kids and at what ages to teach them. But the government? It should only promote what is safe, responsible, and legal.
OK, but it seems kind of telling to just stick your fingers in your ears. Though I do imagine it doesn't surprise many on this board that you'd do that so...whateva.
And c'mon, is it getting late for you or what?; Equating the "crime" of 11- to 13-year olds having sex with each other to the crime of shoplifting? Were you to give it more thought I bet you could come up with a comparison better than that, couldn't you?
And really, this gets to the heart of why we disagree here; You seem to think 11- to 13-year old kids having sex is, despite being inevitable for some or many, this huge offense (but your religion has nothing to do with it) while I think it can be relatively harmless as long as no one gets a disease and no one gets pregnant.
You seem to think that the marginal deterrent value of not having sex education taught to 11- to 13-year old kids in school is worth the unwanted pregnancies and (probably much less common) sexual diseases that could result from that. And you can talk all day long about the fact that kids should get sex ed from their parents but which kids, the ones whose parents talk to them about sex or the ones with parents that don't, do you really think are the ones having the most sex and babies? I'll answer that -- it's likely the ones whose parents aren't teaching them about sex --- and this is why an opting out system is maybe better than an opting in system. So, basically, I think that sex is too "in your face" these days, even for 11-year olds, to think that withholding safe sex knowledge is worthwhile.
I'll be fair here (fairer than the guy who puts his fingers in his ears when asked a question he doesn't like) and ask that you don't get me wrong; I wouldn't want my kids of that age having sex even if disease and babies could be avoided. That's mostly because I'd worry about their emotional health -- it's hard enough as it is to deal with the emotions of kids (especially girls, in my experience) of that age even when you're only talking about what mostly amounts to hardly more than their crushes.
That said, if I found out my kids of that age were having sex I wouldn't let that factor by itself throw me too much. I'd try hard not to overreact (which might be hard depending on who the partner is). I'd do just what the sex ed course is supposed to do; I'd make sure he or she was completely informed about safe sex practices...and I'd try to point out the reasons why having sex at a young age might not be a good idea. I'd also try to make sure that the sex was the result of mutual desire and not manipulation. I would still insist on good grades. I would still insist on chores being done. And I would still insist that my kid treated everyone in the house with respect. And if any of that shit was not happening, well punishment like restriction (even if just phone or computer restriction) just got a lot tougher, didn't it? haha
Note: Thinking more about it, I'd probably have to stop my wife from doing violence our kid and her partner. She's Thai and they have a more direct way of child discipline sometimes...
I can't imagine that I could describe by views (and how they differ from yours) any more clearly so I'm sorry but I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears with respect to any response you might choose to make. ;D
-
OK, but it seems kind of telling to just stick your fingers in your ears. Though I do imagine it doesn't surprise many on this board that you'd do that so...whateva.
And c'mon, is it getting late for you or what?; Equating the "crime" of 11- to 13-year olds having sex with each other to the crime of shoplifting? Were you to give it more thought I bet you could come up with a comparison better than that, couldn't you?
And really, this gets to the heart of why we disagree here; You seem to think 11- to 13-year old kids having sex is, despite being inevitable for some or many, this huge offense (but your religion has nothing to do with it) while I think it can be relatively harmless as long as no one gets a disease and no one gets pregnant.
You seem to think that the marginal deterrent value of not having sex education taught to 11- to 13-year old kids in school is worth the unwanted pregnancies and (probably much less common) sexual diseases that could result from that. And you can talk all day long about the fact that kids should get sex ed from their parents but which kids, the ones whose parents talk to them about sex or the ones with parents that don't, do you really think are the ones having the most sex and babies? I'll answer that -- it's likely the ones whose parents aren't teaching them about sex --- and this is why an opting out system is maybe better than an opting in system. So, basically, I think that sex is too "in your face" these days, even for 11-year olds, to think that withholding safe sex knowledge is worthwhile.
I'll be fair here (fairer than the guy who puts his fingers in his ears when asked a question he doesn't like) and ask that you don't get me wrong; I wouldn't want my kids of that age having sex even if disease and babies could be avoided. That's mostly because I'd worry about their emotional health -- it's hard enough as it is to deal with the emotions of kids (especially girls, in my experience) of that age even when you're only talking about what mostly amounts to hardly more than their crushes.
That said, if I found out my kids of that age were having sex I wouldn't let that factor by itself throw me too much. I'd try hard not to overreact (which might be hard depending on who the partner is). I'd do just what the sex ed course is supposed to do; I'd make sure he or she was completely informed about safe sex practices...and I'd try to point out the reasons why having sex at a young age might not be a good idea. I'd also try to make sure that the sex was the result of mutual desire and not manipulation. I would still insist on good grades. I would still insist on chores being done. And I would still insist that my kid treated everyone in the house with respect. And if any of that shit was not happening, well punishment like restriction (even if just phone or computer restriction) just got a lot tougher, didn't it? haha
Note: Thinking more about it, I'd probably have to stop my wife from doing violence our kid and her partner. She's Thai and they have a more direct way of child discipline sometimes...
I can't imagine that I could describe by views (and how they differ from yours) any more clearly so I'm sorry but I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears with respect to any response you might choose to make. ;D
Small bites dude. We already have one poster who posts dissertations on here. lol
If you think an 11 year old having sex is harmless, then we have diametrically opposed world views.
-
Small bites dude. We already have one poster who posts dissertations on here. lol
...
No kidding. Writing that has seriously cut into the time I was planning to use to play Ass Creed 4 tonight. No lie. Wife doesn't let me play Xbox when she's home so I'm outtahere again.
(Just came back on to find out, via youtube, how to escape the observatory.)
-
Good.
Sex ed program faces overhaul
Parents will have to provide their consent under the new rules for Pono Choices
By Nanea Kalani
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 07, 2014
STAR-ADVERTISER
Pono Choices, billed as a "culturally responsive" teen pregnancy and disease prevention program, has been under fire since last year's special legislative session on gay marriage.
Parents will now have to opt their children in to participate in the controversial middle-school sex education pilot program Pono Choices, which was reviewed for a second time amid complaints from some lawmakers, church groups and parents about it being medically inaccurate and inappropriate for students as young as 11 years old.
The move to an opt-in versus an opt-out decision is one of a dozen changes the Department of Education announced Friday with the release of a 24-page report by a working group convened in February to review the curriculum.
Pono Choices, billed as a "culturally responsive" program to help reduce teen pregnancies and prevent sexually transmitted infections, has been under fire since last year's special session on gay marriage for classifying the anus as genitalia and including explicit lessons that allegedly minimize dangers associated with anal sex.
The program was developed and is owned by the University of Hawaii-Manoa's Center on Disability Studies. It was taught to 11- to 13-year-olds in five public middle schools this past semester.
The working group's report includes 11 recommendations to improve the curriculum and address public concerns. The Department of Education has formally requested that the university center use the recommendations to revise the curriculum before the 2014-15 school year.
The DOE says no schools will implement Pono Choices — previously one of seven DOE-approved programs for middle schools to use for sexual health education — until the department has received a revised version for review.
The review panel focused on 15 parts of the curriculum that were identified as controversial, including the teaching material's definition of sex, anus, pono and abstinence; a condom demonstration; relationship scenarios that included same-sex couples; and images of sexual and reproductive anatomy parts.
The nine-member panel included the DOE's deputy superintendent, a middle-school health teacher, a principal, a parent representative, a clinical professor of pediatrics and director of adolescent medicine at the John A. Burns School of Medicine, the state Department of Health's adolescent health coordinator and representatives for the Hawaii Pastors Roundtable, Hui for Excellence in Education and Faith Action for Community Equality.
Some of the group's recommendations include:
» Change the definition of sex — defined as oral, vaginal and anal sex — to no longer include the anus under the term genitals.
» Update the text in the parent-night materials to match the exact wording in the curriculum regarding the definition of sex and the actual language from relationship scenarios.
» Update a video — designed to help students develop refusal skills — to more clearly reinforce the abstinence message.
» Remove language from the teachers' script that says male condoms have a 98 percent "perfect use effectiveness rate," which implies it's almost 100 percent effective.
» Revisit the meaning and appropriate use of the word "pono" through a discussion with cultural experts.
State Rep. Bob McDermott (R, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point), a leader in the charge against Pono Choices and Hawaii's same-sex marriage law, called some of the changes encouraging but said he's still reviewing the full report.
"I am pleased that the parents received a partial victory," he said, "that the ludicrous concept of defining the anus as a genital has been recommended to do away with. The recommendation to be an opt-in is another win, along with disclosing the elevated risk of anal sex."
Garret Hashimoto, another Pono Choices opponent and president of the Hawaii Christian Coalition, said he was relieved to hear the program won't be taught in schools until revisions are made.
"But I will keep on opposing the curriculum as long as it teaches graphic sex education to 11-year-olds," said Hashimoto, who previously has said he would sue on behalf of concerned parents if the program wasn't significantly amended. "Those teachings belong in the home with the parents."
Separate from the panel's recommendations, the DOE issued a report listing 12 changes it's making "to improve the curriculum review processes and increase parental role in decision-making around sexual health education."
In addition to the opt-in change, the department is asking the Board of Education to review its policies "to provide clarity around the context for classroom discussions about prophylactic devices," or contraceptives. Current policy prohibits the distribution of contraceptive devices in classrooms, on campuses and at school-related activities.
"Let's not forget that the goal of this curriculum and our sexual health education standards, Board (of Education) policies, and state laws, is to reduce unintended teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV," schools Superintendent Kathryn Matayoshi said in a statement.
"Given the statistics about Hawaii's youth — the rate of sexual activity, failure to use protection, rate of pregnancy, and the spread of disease — we must work together to ensure students are educated to make better choices."
Nearly 36 percent of isle middle- and high-schoolers say they are sexually active, a drop from 37 percent in 2011 and 44.3 percent n 2009, according to a preview of the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The full results of the latest survey, performed every two years, will not be released until next week, but selected data were shared with the Board of Education last month.
Among Hawaii's sexually active youth, 45.9 percent reported not using condoms during their last sexual intercourse, and 24 percent said they drank alcohol or used drugs before their last intercourse.