SEX!
That should lead to a few hits from people not expecting this. I was going to take the day off and have a nice juicy post about today's teenagers tomorrow (since I am back in daily contact with the evil geniuses), but then I saw this story about a federal judge blocking a new health curriculum that discusses homosexuals and the use of a condom. Sigh. Seriously, sometimes I think we're living in a theocracy.
Now, it's not necessarily the blocking of the new curriculum because it discusses homosexuals in a "positive light." Apparently the curriculum says Baptists, for instance, are wrong because they don't those gays. This is treading a fine line, and if Muslims and Jews and, I don't know, Wiccans want to be treated fairly in public schools, then Baptists should get the same treatment. Imagine the holy uproar if a school actively taught that Islam was a bad religion because of the way they treat women.
Before I start sounding too right-wing, I will say this ruling still disturbs me. One parent said that she doesn't think it's right that the curriculum teaches 13-year-olds to think about their sexuality. "We should just let them be kids," she says.
Hey, that's great. Unfortunately for these kids, no one really cares about them as human beings anymore. Even people who cry "Won't someone think of the children!" don't really care about them, they just want to shelter them as much as possible. However, 13-year-olds are getting pregnant these days (thanks to Dave for linking to the original story), and hiding our heads in the sand won't help them. Kids are hitting puberty earlier these days, thanks to hormones in the food that their parents didn't know or care about, and they are exposed to a culture that tells them it's okay to have sex when they're 12. Yes, parents should counteract those influences as much as possible, but keeping sex ed out of the schools because you're uncomfortable with it isn't the way to go. Kids are also exposed to homosexuality earlier these days, and many if kids are experiencing sexual feelings when they're 11 or 12, you can bet they're experiencing homosexual feelings as well. Does it suck that you might have to have "the sex talk" with your kid when he or she is nine? Sure it does. Take a time machine back to the 1950s if you don't like it. I have plenty of articles calling for Democrats to get on board the censorship of popular entertainment train because they want to get parents on their side, the argument being that although parents are ultimately responsible for what their kids see and hear, they need all the help they can get. If they need all the help they can get from the government to make sure their kids don't see Janet Jackson's booby, then they need all the help they can get to make sure their kids know about STDs and homosexuality and the use of condoms, too. I would support more stringent controls of what kids can watch if it meant the government and parents got serious about teaching kids this stuff, too. Let's take bets on that happening.
Sign my GuestMap! Look at all the people who are jumping on board! Don't you want to be on the bandwagon like Tom Smith in Merrie Olde England, or Bart in the Netherlands (or Belgium, I suppose - those European countries sure are teeny!), or MercuryX23 in Los Angeles, or Tom in Kentucky, or The Disgruntled Chemist in Irvine? Sure you do!
Now, it's not necessarily the blocking of the new curriculum because it discusses homosexuals in a "positive light." Apparently the curriculum says Baptists, for instance, are wrong because they don't those gays. This is treading a fine line, and if Muslims and Jews and, I don't know, Wiccans want to be treated fairly in public schools, then Baptists should get the same treatment. Imagine the holy uproar if a school actively taught that Islam was a bad religion because of the way they treat women.
Before I start sounding too right-wing, I will say this ruling still disturbs me. One parent said that she doesn't think it's right that the curriculum teaches 13-year-olds to think about their sexuality. "We should just let them be kids," she says.
Hey, that's great. Unfortunately for these kids, no one really cares about them as human beings anymore. Even people who cry "Won't someone think of the children!" don't really care about them, they just want to shelter them as much as possible. However, 13-year-olds are getting pregnant these days (thanks to Dave for linking to the original story), and hiding our heads in the sand won't help them. Kids are hitting puberty earlier these days, thanks to hormones in the food that their parents didn't know or care about, and they are exposed to a culture that tells them it's okay to have sex when they're 12. Yes, parents should counteract those influences as much as possible, but keeping sex ed out of the schools because you're uncomfortable with it isn't the way to go. Kids are also exposed to homosexuality earlier these days, and many if kids are experiencing sexual feelings when they're 11 or 12, you can bet they're experiencing homosexual feelings as well. Does it suck that you might have to have "the sex talk" with your kid when he or she is nine? Sure it does. Take a time machine back to the 1950s if you don't like it. I have plenty of articles calling for Democrats to get on board the censorship of popular entertainment train because they want to get parents on their side, the argument being that although parents are ultimately responsible for what their kids see and hear, they need all the help they can get. If they need all the help they can get from the government to make sure their kids don't see Janet Jackson's booby, then they need all the help they can get to make sure their kids know about STDs and homosexuality and the use of condoms, too. I would support more stringent controls of what kids can watch if it meant the government and parents got serious about teaching kids this stuff, too. Let's take bets on that happening.
Sign my GuestMap! Look at all the people who are jumping on board! Don't you want to be on the bandwagon like Tom Smith in Merrie Olde England, or Bart in the Netherlands (or Belgium, I suppose - those European countries sure are teeny!), or MercuryX23 in Los Angeles, or Tom in Kentucky, or The Disgruntled Chemist in Irvine? Sure you do!
posted by Greg | 5:38 PM
6 Comments:
The curriculum doesn't say anything about Baptists.
Where is said "guest map" so that I may blindly add my name to it.
And Christians shouldn't let Baptists pro-create.
That's strange, because the judge said specifically that the curriculum singles out Baptists. I don't know; I didn't read it, just the story.
Now, Lefty - be nice! The GuestMap is right under the recent posts.
Bart's definitely in Belgium...he's got the flag and everything. It's the same flag I've got hanging from my ceiling.
As for the rest of the post...I hate these efforts by the fundamentalists to mold the curriculum to churn out a generation of ignorant, religious high school graduates.
That's not to say that religious = ignorant, but the curriculum changes being proposed will make future kids both. I posted on this yesterday as it relates to Kansas trying to stick "intelligent design" in their science curriculum. No es bueno!
I know religion is an aspect of it, but I can't overlook the "it's icky to talk about sex" part of it as well (which might go hand-in-hand with the religious aspect). Parents feel squeamish about talking with their kids about sex, but they won't let schools do it. So the kid learns from, well, all those well-educated peers at school and on MTV.
Sue Johansen has been doing the 'Dr. Ruth for teenagers' thing for years, and quite well, in my opinion.
Post a Comment
<< Home