RSS
Sex Ed for Dummies and 5 Year Olds
Some people are still claiming the McCain ad criticizing Barack Obama's support for comprehensive sex education for children as young as 5-years old is "a lie."
From the bill:
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."
Later, it says all instruction and content will be "age appropriate" and parents can opt their kids out of it.
OK, if "each class" in which comprehensive sex ed if offered -- that is, kindergarten through 12th --, "shall" include instruction," (not may, not can, not could - SHALL include instruction) on prevention of sexually transmitted infection, AIDS etc. will someone please show us how that will be made "age-appropriate" for 5 and 6-year-olds. Puppets? Cartoon characters?
UPDATE: Sure, Obama tried to characterize his support for this bill in the most innocuous way possible and he's certainly entitled to do so. But the bill says what it says. What Obama voted for was "comprehensive sex education" all the way down to kindergarteners. And his supporters are the ones who are obfuscating if they say that he didn't.
From the bill:
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."
Later, it says all instruction and content will be "age appropriate" and parents can opt their kids out of it.
OK, if "each class" in which comprehensive sex ed if offered -- that is, kindergarten through 12th --, "shall" include instruction," (not may, not can, not could - SHALL include instruction) on prevention of sexually transmitted infection, AIDS etc. will someone please show us how that will be made "age-appropriate" for 5 and 6-year-olds. Puppets? Cartoon characters?
UPDATE: Sure, Obama tried to characterize his support for this bill in the most innocuous way possible and he's certainly entitled to do so. But the bill says what it says. What Obama voted for was "comprehensive sex education" all the way down to kindergarteners. And his supporters are the ones who are obfuscating if they say that he didn't.
posted by Spencerblog at
1:16 PM
12 Comments:
Gil, who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself? Do you realy expect me to believe (as McCain is trying to do with his ad), that Obama wants Kindergarten students to be taught how to have sex? I think we all know that that's what McCain was implying. I'm disapointed that you would defend this type of campaigning. It was nothing short of a sick, cheap shot.
That’s it, make Obama’s disgusting documented gaffe out to somehow be McCain’s flaw. Talk about dishonest…
This comment has been removed by the author.
1. That's not sex education. It's plain hygiene and it can be called such. In fact, it's dumb to call it "comprehensive sex education" because of what that term actually means.
2. The kind of puppets Diano is talking about - anatomically correct puppets - are only used by police and therapists with children when they suspect abuse or a crime has been committed. Is Diano under the impression that public school kindergarten teachers across the country routinely break out such dolls and discuss "inappropriate touching" in class?
3. There are very reasonable concerns that attempting to "educate" 5-year-olds about good and bad "touching" can do more harm than good.
As noted by Federico Genoese-Zerbi:
"In fact, several kinds of negative, unintended, results have been documented (albeit weakly) in relation to child based prevention programs (parents, think about this when you review your children’s kindergarten and elementary school curricula). Some studies documented affective changes in trained children causing them to have negative response to touching associated with non abusive situations such as bathing and tickling [15]. Other studies have documented an increase in fear and apprehension in children who have been trained, [16] including anxiety about becoming victims of child sexual abuse and growing fear of adults. [17] " "Don’t get me wrong:" writes Genoese-Zerbi, "these data are not definitive. Nevertheless they do suggest harm and it seems irresponsible to expose children to it with no clear and convincing benefit to be gained."
It may have been concerns like this that led the state of Illinois to reject comprehensive school sex ed right down to kindergarten that Obama voted to pass.
I trust THAT is not over Diano's head, pointed as it may be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The ONLY people that have any reason to be FOR this kind of inappropriate sexual exposure education for young children are the sexual predators themselves (or their vicarious Liberal supporters).
As for the sexualizing of puppets to children… I’ve heard that some child rapists use puppets to soften up their young prey. Shall schools also use candy and puppies to lure/ teach 5 year olds about adult things? Sounds a whole lot more like conditioning than educating. One can only imagine how this would forever change children’s once innocent doll/ stuffed animal/ puppet play. Chilling.
See, the real issue here (since Donkeys say we should stick to real issues) is that Obama made a big mistake by supporting this age inappropriate Liberal initiative which has no place in schools. And rather than just admitting it was a mistake and moving on, he goes on the offensive and lies about it some more, compounding the political damage done to himself. And then amateur LibDem operative dopes come on blog boards and make it worse by blindly defending Obama’s indefensible blunder.
It has become clear that to his blind followers, Obama could say or do anything –ANYTHING- and they would still blindly defend him. Think about how seriously messed up that level of vicious blind partisanship is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
See what I mean.
Once an emotional Lib becomes so emotional invested in something (in this case candidate B. Hussein Obama) it is very difficult for them to pry themselves away from that, even when faced with evidence that their emotions have led them astray.
And as we all know, emotion is never a good foundation on which to base politics or policy. In fact, emotion has no place in such things at all and should be barred, much as emotion is barred from courtrooms. But Libs rely on their emotions to guide them through everything. Much like children they are in this way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
(sigh) Ok. Except for a little weep time set aside at the end of the trial so it doesn’t contaminate the proceedings. Jeez… damn petty Libs…
And despite dishonest LibDem suggestions to the contrary, keeping people reminded of the threats we face in the war on terror is by no stretch “fear mongering”. You should thank Bush for keeping us safe for seven years, btw.
Also, when the anti-abortion crowd shows pics of murdered preborns, they are merely informing everyone as to what really takes place with that procedure. What do you pro-abortion folks have against full disclosure, hmmm? That like calling murder a “choice”? (snicker)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home