Child abuse in schools

[CaptainCourtesy]

Another expert on life and everything.

Which is, of course, better than not being one which is what you seem to be.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Really?

Yup. See? You learned something new.

 

[CLAX1911]

Which is, of course, better than not being one which is what you seem to be.

There is something strange about a person who thinks that gay people are out to get them.

This must be a picture of one of these big bad gay people that exist only to get you...
http://becausemollysaidso.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/man_bear_pig.jpg?w=584

 

[roguenuke]

Point to me where, exactly, I said that. Please.

I SAID that educational attendance in the United States is compulsory. I said that many cannot afford any option but public schools. But, never once did I say that people are forced to attend public schools.

Show me where I said otherwise.

EDIT: And, for the record, it is quite relevant given that you were making blanket statements such as "if they care enough, they'll get it done." That ignores the reality of the fact that there are those who DO care but CAN'T "get it done."

Except this isn't completely true. There are other options in most states. Heck most states now offer free online schooling for students. Unless the parents are also using the schools for free child care as well then this shouldn't be a problem. And considering that sex education isn't generally started until after a child is of an age old enough to be alone legally (in most states at least), then there is little reason that a parent couldn't allow online schooling for their children if they have that big of an issue with their children being taught sex education in school.

You have some rights to what your children are taught, when it is deemed inappropriate from a reasonable person standpoint. Sex education is not deemed inappropriate by most from a reasonable person standpoint though.

 

[Koros]

Except this isn't completely true. There are other options in most states. Heck most states now offer free online schooling for students. Unless the parents are also using the schools for free child care as well then this shouldn't be a problem. And considering that sex education isn't generally started until after a child is of an age old enough to be alone legally (in most states at least), then there is little reason that a parent couldn't allow online schooling for their children if they have that big of an issue with their children being taught sex education in school.

You have some rights to what your children are taught, when it is deemed inappropriate from a reasonable person standpoint. Sex education is not deemed inappropriate by most from a reasonable person standpoint though.

I'm not following. What, exactly, are you disagreeing with me on?

 

[roguenuke]

I'm not following. What, exactly, are you disagreeing with me on?

There are other options when it comes to alternatives to public school that might involve sex education, including allowing students to do online schooling (which is available in most states) at home. There are about 6 states where they don't have it, but they are likely to have it in the next few years given how fast online schooling has popped up for the other states.

Now, personally I don't see why/how anyone could have that big of an issue with sex education that if their children were required to take it, they would want to remove their children from that situation, but most would still have that option. For the rest, I would just say that it probably really wouldn't be an issue since most of those states without online schooling available also seem to be the states that would either be abstinence only or where sex education requires either permission or the parents can opt out their children from it.

The biggest issue here really is that many complain about sex education as a whole (and I'm not really including you, just talking about those who seriously believe it is a form of child abuse), and yet probably have no frickin clue even what the schools in their area do/would teach during sex education. That is a huge part of when it is appropriate to actually bring up an issue with what a school is teaching when it comes to a reasonable person viewpoint for what is appropriate or not.

 

[Koros]

There are other options when it comes to alternatives to public school that might involve sex education, including allowing students to do online schooling (which is available in most states) at home. There are about 6 states where they don't have it, but they are likely to have it in the next few years given how fast online schooling has popped up for the other states.

Now, personally I don't see why/how anyone could have that big of an issue with sex education that if their children were required to take it, they would want to remove their children from that situation, but most would still have that option. For the rest, I would just say that it probably really wouldn't be an issue since most of those states without online schooling available also seem to be the states that would either be abstinence only or where sex education requires either permission or the parents can opt out their children from it.

The biggest issue here really is that many complain about sex education as a whole (and I'm not really including you, just talking about those who seriously believe it is a form of child abuse), and yet probably have no frickin clue even what the schools in their area do/would teach during sex education. That is a huge part of when it is appropriate to actually bring up an issue with what a school is teaching when it comes to a reasonable person viewpoint for what is appropriate or not.

I agree with you. But I'm still confused. You said that my comment wasn't exactly true. I'm still not sure what I said that you take issue with.

 

[roguenuke]

I agree with you. But I'm still confused. You said that my comment wasn't exactly true. I'm still not sure what I said that you take issue with.

There are alternatives to public school for the vast majority of people in this country, even if they have very little money. Even my family could have afforded to use online schooling had it been available during my childhood (it would have in fact been a very good alternative for my siblings after my mother started taking traveling nurse assignments). I was just saying that there are alternatives available despite money or even working/time issues that many families face.

 

[Koros]

There are alternatives to public school for the vast majority of people in this country, even if they have very little money. Even my family could have afforded to use online schooling had it been available during my childhood (it would have in fact been a very good alternative for my siblings after my mother started taking traveling nurse assignments). I was just saying that there are alternatives available despite money or even working/time issues that many families face.

Thank you for clarifying. You are both, at the same time, right and supporting my assertion. "Alternatives to public school for the vast majority." Vast majority does not mean ALL. That was my point.

 

[sneakosview]

......and you're funny too!

Which is, of course, better than not being one which is what you seem to be.

 

[sneakosview]

Great.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yup. See? You learned something new.

There are many people that hold opinions not because it reflects their feelings but to be against things. They are called contrarians. You can spot them by their blanket statements that are typically untrue and never well founded. Some of them. even make up things and falsify data to reach their goal. I have seen it occur many times here on this board on this particular subject. Best thing to do is ignore such behavior being that these folks are trying to bait you into a flame war.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

......and you're funny too!

Correct and funny. And with my undeniable charm, that's the trifecta.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

There are many people that hold opinions not because it reflects their feelings but to be against things. They are called contrarians. You can spot them by their blanket statements that are typically untrue and never well founded. Some of them. even make up things and falsify data to reach their goal. I have seen it occur many times here on this board on this particular subject. Best thing to do is ignore such behavior being that these folks are trying to bait you into a flame war.

Sometimes this is true, but mostly it seems to be that these people actually believe the views they post. Besides, I am immune to this kind of baiting.

 

[sneakosview]

I've got your fecta right here pally!

 

[CLAX1911]

Sometimes this is true, but mostly it seems to be that these people actually believe the views they post. Besides, I am immune to this kind of baiting.

Sorry, I take a different approach. Treat these people as they are, which is nothing.

Nothing wrong with either approach. But I think some of them post provocative and hateful things to get the threads closed, or derail them particularly when they don't like the discussions projected conclusion.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Sorry, I take a different approach. Treat these people as they are, which is nothing.

Nothing wrong with either approach. But I think some of them post provocative and hateful things to get the threads closed, or derail them particularly when they don't like the discussions projected conclusion.

That could be, but I am in the unique position of being able to shut them down in a variety of ways when they bait/troll.

 

[CLAX1911]

That could be, but I am in the unique position of being able to shut them down in a variety of ways when they bait/troll.

To each his own I suppose

 

[Hard Truth]

I suppose your position really hinges on how to define lurid.

At the 2000 event, which was cosponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, a youth workshop was held, specifically targeting 14-21-year-olds, which taught them how to perform a dangerous sexual practice known as "fisting" - a practice so extreme that it cannot be described here.​

What actually happened:

"The workshop, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class," was a discussion led by Julie Netherland and Margot Abels, coordinators of the DOE's HIV/AIDS Program, and Michael Gaucher, an HIV/AIDS consultant for the Department of Public Health, and was designed for youth between the ages of 14-21.........participants wrote down on index cards their questions about sex, dating, HIV/AIDS, and related issues. Workshop leaders, all trained professionals, read the questions aloud and answered them. ... "The first question was read by Julie Netherland: 'What's fisting?' A student answered this question by informing the class that 'fisting' is when you put your 'whole hand into the ass or *****' of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, 'A little known fact about fisting, you don't make a fist, like this. It's like this,' forming his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier. Margot Abels told the students that 'fisting' is not about forcing your hand into somebody's 'hole, opening or orifice' if they don't want it there. She said that 'usually' the person is very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it was a very emotional and intense experience....."
Firestorm over GLSEN sex education workshop worsens - Bay Windows

Should children be denied any opportunity to ask questions about sex? Should instructors refuse to answer certain questions?

 

[CLAX1911]

What actually happened:

"The workshop, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class," was a discussion led by Julie Netherland and Margot Abels, coordinators of the DOE's HIV/AIDS Program, and Michael Gaucher, an HIV/AIDS consultant for the Department of Public Health, and was designed for youth between the ages of 14-21.........participants wrote down on index cards their questions about sex, dating, HIV/AIDS, and related issues. Workshop leaders, all trained professionals, read the questions aloud and answered them. ... "The first question was read by Julie Netherland: 'What's fisting?' A student answered this question by informing the class that 'fisting' is when you put your 'whole hand into the ass or *****' of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, 'A little known fact about fisting, you don't make a fist, like this. It's like this,' forming his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier. Margot Abels told the students that 'fisting' is not about forcing your hand into somebody's 'hole, opening or orifice' if they don't want it there. She said that 'usually' the person is very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it was a very emotional and intense experience....."
Firestorm over GLSEN sex education workshop worsens - Bay Windows

Should children be denied any opportunity to ask questions about sex? Should instructors refuse to answer certain questions?

I would think that leaving children to their own devices is abusive. I am sure the kid asked that just to get laughs in an uneasy yet necessary discussion. I remember instructing youth on how to protect themselves from a pervert, how to recognize such perverts. There was a lot of nervous laughter at some of the things I said. They laugh because they are uncomfortable and laughter is a way to deal with nervousness. Sometimes they make remarks and ask embarrassing questions. But regardless it's a good thing for children to know.

Same goes for sex. Just like I wouldn't want my boy to learn about pedophiles after he was abused, I wouldn't want him to know about sex after he knocked up some girl.

Kids become sexual in their adolescents. I know I did. If you wait until they are 18 it's to late

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What actually happened:

"The workshop, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class," was a discussion led by Julie Netherland and Margot Abels, coordinators of the DOE's HIV/AIDS Program, and Michael Gaucher, an HIV/AIDS consultant for the Department of Public Health, and was designed for youth between the ages of 14-21.........participants wrote down on index cards their questions about sex, dating, HIV/AIDS, and related issues. Workshop leaders, all trained professionals, read the questions aloud and answered them. ... "The first question was read by Julie Netherland: 'What's fisting?' A student answered this question by informing the class that 'fisting' is when you put your 'whole hand into the ass or *****' of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, 'A little known fact about fisting, you don't make a fist, like this. It's like this,' forming his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier. Margot Abels told the students that 'fisting' is not about forcing your hand into somebody's 'hole, opening or orifice' if they don't want it there. She said that 'usually' the person is very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it was a very emotional and intense experience....."
Firestorm over GLSEN sex education workshop worsens - Bay Windows

Should children be denied any opportunity to ask questions about sex? Should instructors refuse to answer certain questions?

Wait... so you mean that Riverdad MISREPRESENTED what happened? Who'd have thought that?

 

[CLAX1911]

What actually happened:

"The workshop, "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex and Sexuality in Health Class," was a discussion led by Julie Netherland and Margot Abels, coordinators of the DOE's HIV/AIDS Program, and Michael Gaucher, an HIV/AIDS consultant for the Department of Public Health, and was designed for youth between the ages of 14-21.........participants wrote down on index cards their questions about sex, dating, HIV/AIDS, and related issues. Workshop leaders, all trained professionals, read the questions aloud and answered them. ... "The first question was read by Julie Netherland: 'What's fisting?' A student answered this question by informing the class that 'fisting' is when you put your 'whole hand into the ass or *****' of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, 'A little known fact about fisting, you don't make a fist, like this. It's like this,' forming his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier. Margot Abels told the students that 'fisting' is not about forcing your hand into somebody's 'hole, opening or orifice' if they don't want it there. She said that 'usually' the person is very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it was a very emotional and intense experience....."
Firestorm over GLSEN sex education workshop worsens - Bay Windows

Should children be denied any opportunity to ask questions about sex? Should instructors refuse to answer certain questions?

forgot to mention that I knew thatthis was some over reaction that the anti gay crowd would trump up as some make believe travesty.

 

[Hard Truth]

forgot to mention that I knew thatthis was some over reaction that the anti gay crowd would trump up as some make believe travesty.

It took some digging to get the truth. A Google search turned up the original story from a right wing Christian fundamentalist source, and numerous reposts and quotes from the original in other right wing and fundamentalist outlets. The right wing misinformation machine tends to endlessly repeat these bogus and/or misleading stories so often that they appear to be credible to less sophisticated readers.

 

[Ocean007]

Why is it that we, despite being a supposedly civilized society, openly tolerate and encourage the practice of groups of schoolchildren being forced to listen to perverts describing every aspect and detail of possible sexual activities. We have a euphemism for such abuse, we call it "sex education". Some, who know that this is wrong, try to pretend that as long as they the program includes "but don't do any of this ", that it's ok. Personally I have no tolerance for such child abusers and believe they should be locked up for a very long time.

How old are these "schoolchildren," exactly? :roll: If they are in sex education classes, odds are these "children" are not little kids, but teenagers whose often-clueless parents probably don't talk with them about the facts of sex at all. They just use the useless "just say no" approach and nothing else. Then these same parents are shocked when their teen daughter ends up pregnant or their teen son GETS a girl pregnant.

Sex education is hardly "child abuse," contrary to what backward conservatives want everyone to believe. However, I would say that the highly INeffective "abstinence-ONLY" approach to sex ed comes pretty close, since it tends to create more unwanted pregnancies than it was intended to prevent. Luckily, I did have parents who talked with me openly and honestly about what can and does happen when a girl mistakenly caves in to a sex-pressuring boyfriend's demand to have sex. Thanks to them, I made a rule for myself while in high school: "if he pressures you for sex, DUMP HIM!" That rule served me very well, since I DIDN'T end up pregnant and a teen mom.

 

[Paleocon]

How old are these "schoolchildren," exactly? :roll: If they are in sex education classes, odds are these "children" are not little kids, but teenagers whose often-clueless parents probably don't talk with them about the facts of sex at all. They just use the useless "just say no" approach and nothing else. Then these same parents are shocked when their teen daughter ends up pregnant or their teen son GETS a girl pregnant.

Sex education is hardly "child abuse," contrary to what backward conservatives want everyone to believe. However, I would say that the highly INeffective "abstinence-ONLY" approach to sex ed comes pretty close, since it tends to create more unwanted pregnancies than it was intended to prevent. Luckily, I did have parents who talked with me openly and honestly about what can and does happen when a girl mistakenly caves in to a sex-pressuring boyfriend's demand to have sex. Thanks to them, I made a rule for myself while in high school: "if he pressures you for sex, DUMP HIM!" That rule served me very well, since I DIDN'T end up pregnant and a teen mom.

So your parents talked to you about it, and you abstained, and everything went well. Thank you for demonstrating my point.