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]

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.

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.

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.