What's going on, Romney: McCain accusation; WRONG & REPREHENSIBLE

reply to post by jsobecky


What?

The GOP says teaching children "bad touch good touch" is wrong. They say Obama's plan to PROTECT children from pedophiles is wrong. Why are they so partisan as to say protecting children from pedophiles by teaching them "Good touch bad touch" is bad?

Ask and you shall receive.

Syllabus for Sex-Ed Program

If you jump up to page 50, you can find the beginnings of the curriculum. Level 1 outlines the agenda for ages 5 through 8.

Within, we find such gems as

Bodies can feel good when touched.

Masturbation, either alone or with a partner, is one way people can enjoy and express their sexuality
without risking pregnancy or an STD/HIV.

Among others...

You should take your own advice because his two statements agree with each other. Why would the GOP pick this issue, about teaching kids stranger danger, and use it to attack Obama is a pretty good question.

[edit on 9/15/08 by stikkinikki]

Originally posted by sc2099

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sc2099
How can anyone say that children below 6th grade should be taught about the sexual transmission of HIV? Honestly! This is beyond ridiculous.

Read it all.

"All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate."

I'm done feeding this nonsense.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

BH, I did read it ALL. Every single line. The passage I posted was in the first bloody section. It says explicitly "grades K through 12".

I asked in my first post in this thread, what exactly is age appropriate knowledge about sex and AIDS for 5 year olds. Maybe you should have read all of that.

Age appropriate knowledge about sex to a five year old would probably include something about telling an adult if a stranger touches them, or attempts to get the them to go somewhere.

Do you really think that a teacher, under this bill, is going to slam down a Biology textbook, put "The Miracle of Life" in the DVD player and say, "Alright I know none of you will remember any of this because you're so young, but I am going to explain everything about sex and diseases to you"?

Give me a break.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by davion]

reply to post by nyk537


And? Is what he said wrong? or are the GOP going to claim masturbating alone can cause AIDS and other STDs?

If the curriculum said "Doing it on a tuesday is 100% no chance of pregnancy" then there would be a problem. But it doesn't say anything false.

Man, 2,000 years ago 10 was freaking middle age and people would be married by then. Sure we matured faster back then, but there are some children maturing at a young age. Wasn't there a 8year old girl pregnant in South America? Like the record for youngest recorded pregnancy?

What if she had been taught at the age of 6 the "Bad touch good touch" like Barack wants to teach? I doubt it would have done much good as she was most likely raised to believe that was ok... it might have changed her life if she had known it was wrong.

Originally posted by davion

Age appropriate knowledge about sex to a five year old would probably include something about telling an adult if strangers touch you, or try to get you to go with them somewhere.

Do you really think that a teacher, under this bill, is going to slam down a Biology textbook, put "The Miracle of Life" in the DVD player and say, "Alright I know none of you will remember any of this because you're so young, but I am going to explain everything about sex and diseases to you"?

Give me a break.

Which is why I said

There is no way that it would take more than a few minutes' blurb for a teacher to explain to kindergarteners what touch is bad and what touch is ok. There doesn't need to be an entire curriculum because children that age are on a need-to-know basis and the only thing they need to know is that it's not ok to touch others "here", "here", or "here" and it's not ok for others to touch them that way either.

and

What exactly is "age appropriate" sex education for 4-5 year olds? I would say nothing.

Basically, there is no reason for the "good touch/bad touch" discussion to take a sexual overtone because children that age do not need knowledge of sexuality. All they need to know is that the good touch is good and the bad touch is bad. There is no need for an entire curriculum to explain this most simple of concepts, and there is no reason to complicate their understanding of it with sex.

reply to post by stikkinikki


Please. Read before you post. His two statements are contradictory.

Nobody is against teaching kids about "stranger danger". The number of children who are murdered by perverts shows that being touched can mean a heck of a lot more than sex. And I don't know a single parent who needs the government to teach their kids about that danger, in their own way.

Parents are not against teaching kids about danger. We're against schoolteachers whispering their own words in to our children's ears.

As a Roman Catholic, I can tell you that the church was always against sex education for children. How ironic. Had the victims of sex abuse at the hands of Catholic priests been more educated about pedophiles, perhaps the scandal would have been stopped decades before it came to light.

Look, the Republicans HAVE to focus on these peripheral issues because the last thing they want is the American public thinking about the economy, the abysmal healthcare situation in the US, the collapsing public education system or the Iraq war.

I would imagine that the thousands of parents who lost kids in a war built on lies would much rather be concerned about what kinds of sex education should be taught to their pre-schoolers.

Wake up people. Look at what the Republican Party has done to this country. I am no fan of Bill Clinton, believe me, but the country he left George Bush hardly resembles the one that will be handed over to the next President.

John McCain is just more of the same. How can we possibly allow that?

Originally posted by Krieger
Man, 2,000 years ago 10 was freaking middle age and people would be married by then. Sure we matured faster back then, but there are some children maturing at a young age. Wasn't there a 8year old girl pregnant in South America? Like the record for youngest recorded pregnancy?

What if she had been taught at the age of 6 the "Bad touch good touch" like Barack wants to teach? I doubt it would have done much good as she was most likely raised to believe that was ok... it might have changed her life if she had known it was wrong.

Wow...

First of all, the girl was 5. Second of all, she was OBVIOUSLY raped. Third, she was a member of an indigenous population raised in a freaking jungle. I don't think BO's sex ed plan would have helped her one iota.

Originally posted by sc2099
Basically, there is no reason for the "good touch/bad touch" discussion to take a sexual overtone because children that age do not need knowledge of sexuality. All they need to know is that the good touch is good and the bad touch is bad. There is no need for an entire curriculum to explain this most simple of concepts, and there is no reason to complicate their understanding of it with sex.

That concept already takes a sexual overtone, the children just don't pick up on it, which is what I would expect from any kind of teaching about sexuality at that young of an age. The children aren't going to grasp that it's sexual, just that one version is bad and one version is good.

reply to post by jsobecky


No they aren't.

Second, then please explain all these children touched who don't talk because they don't know its bad? Until its too late and their raped, killed, so forth. Because the parents are uncomfortable talking about it. Just like later in life they don't want to talk to their say, 14 year old daughter and oops, she learns from friends, TV, movies, and ends up pregnant. If they had been given sex education maybe they would have learned better examples then Rap Video Hoes and their friends doing it in the bathroom at school.(Walked in on others more then once when in school)

reply to post by Krieger

Originally posted by Krieger
reply to post by nyk537

 

And? Is what he said wrong? or are the GOP going to claim masturbating alone can cause AIDS and other STDs?

Will you please stop it with this "GOP" crap?!!! Every single one of your posts contains this divisive rhetoric! Enough!

I know thousands of Democrats. Very very few of them want the schools to teach their 5 year olds about sex.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by stikkinikki

 

Please. Read before you post. His two statements are contradictory.

incorrect

Nobody is against teaching kids about "stranger danger". The number of children who are murdered by perverts shows that being touched can mean a heck of a lot more than sex. And I don't know a single parent who needs the government to teach their kids about that danger, in their own way.

Parents are not against teaching kids about danger. We're against schoolteachers whispering their own words in to our children's ears.

What about the permission slip? Parents can keep their children out of class. What about children with unattentive parents? There is no reason to ignore the issues of children without responsible parents. Our society will benefit from educated children knowing when something is dangerous.

reply to post by sc2099


5? Dang, younger then I thought. Fine, what if she had been taught at the age of 4 that it was wrong? Maybe she would have fought back?

And I know BO's plan wouldn't have done anything but are you claiming that AMerica is a bunch of natives living in the jungle worshiping a Pepsi can that was thrown out of a plane?(Or was it a Coke can? Gah, some natives somewhere were worshiping a can cause it fell from a God, which was a plane)

reply to post by Krieger

Originally posted by Krieger
reply to post by jsobecky

 

No they aren't.

Second, then please explain all these children touched who don't talk because they don't know its bad? Until its too late and their raped, killed, so forth.

This is ignorance at it's worst. Read some studies on child sexual abuse and learn how the children are frightened into silence by threats that their parents will hate them if they tell, etc.

And you do not have statistic one to back up your claim that kids don't talk because they didn't know.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Will you please stop it with this "GOP" crap?!!! Every single one of your posts contains this divisive rhetoric! Enough!

I know thousands of Democrats. Very very few of them want the schools to teach their 5 year olds about sex.

Too bad McCain launched the ad about this. McCain is the GOP candidate. Why are people saying GOP? Do the math.

[edit on 9/15/08 by stikkinikki]

Originally posted by jsobecky

Will you please stop it with this "GOP" crap?!!! Every single one of your posts contains this divisive rhetoric! Enough!

I know thousands of Democrats. Very very few of them want the schools to teach their 5 year olds about sex.

Agreed. Star for that jso.

Seriously, Krieger, you do that crap on every single thread. You are one of the chief contributors that have made the new anti-trolling rules necessary. Just stop it.

reply to davion:

The concept only takes a sexual overtone if you are an adult or older kid. It does not to a kindergartener because they have no idea of what sex is. Which is exactly the reason this discussion should not be initiated in the context of sex ed. It only muddies the waters and makes confusing and inappropriate something which is simple and very important for kids that age.

Everybody is going to have a different opinion on teaching children about sex, at what age it should be done, and what exactly should be taught. That is why there is an opt out for parents.

I wish the tone of this thread wasn't so negative. (not towards McCain/Obama, but towards each other.)

Getting to the specifics of the program, I don't see a problem with teaching kids that touching parts of the body feels good. It is the foundation to then educate about abuse. IOW, it may feel good, but other people aren't allowed to do it to you. It's an obvious avenue for any potential abuser - ("Don't worry, I won't hurt you. See? It feels good doesn't it?)

You have explain the difference in CLEAR language.

Or at least, that's my opinion on it.

reply to post by stikkinikki

Originally posted by stikkinikki

incorrect

OK, keep repeating it. That will make it true.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
What about the permission slip? Parents can keep their children out of class. What about children with unattentive parents? There is no reason to ignore the issues of children without responsible parents. Our society will benefit from educated children knowing when something is dangerous.

The permission slip stigmatizes children. And I don't hear you making the same argument over saying a prayer in class.

The permission slip still allows the gov't into our homes, and supplants parent's teachings with what the schools teach. Keep the gov't out of our classrooms!

Originally posted by Krieger
reply to post by sc2099

 

5? Dang, younger then I thought. Fine, what if she had been taught at the age of 4 that it was wrong? Maybe she would have fought back?

And I know BO's plan wouldn't have done anything but are you claiming that AMerica is a bunch of natives living in the jungle worshiping a Pepsi can that was thrown out of a plane?(Or was it a Coke can? Gah, some natives somewhere were worshiping a can cause it fell from a God, which was a plane)

I cannot even believe you are being serious right now. A 5 year old rape victim would have fought off her abuser if she had been taught sex ed at 4. I have no words for that kind of ignorance.

Where would you even get from my statement that I am comparing Americans to natives in a jungle? You are not only grasping for something that isn't there, you're just making it up as you go along.