Kansas to criminalize sex education...

[Inkfingers]

Kids today are being taught how to mutually touch each other as part of "sex ed". Is that something you want your 12 year old learning? I was lucky enough to intercept a permission slip that my son's school sent home for a special assembly they were going to have with a local Planned Parenthood representative, to teach a sex ed class. I later learned that some of the material included in that class were things that would make some of us have our hair stand on end. I was thoroughly disgusted that they were bringing this garbage into a middle school. I wonder how many parents signed that permission slip, thinking it would be something harmless, or helpful, without bothering to find out themselves what materials would be taught to their own children.

Oh but children are not being sexualised as a precursor to lowering the age of consent though, are they....

Or do you change your view dependent on which thread you post in?

 

[Inkachu]

Also, the thread title is misleading. It says "Kansas to criminalize..." as if it's about to happen. It's not, it's just a bill that's been introduced.

It's also worth nothing that this bill would NOT just remove all sex education from schools (even though that seems to be what people are assuming, and hey, it makes a great excuse to argue with each other). It would prohibit sexual content that is NOT reasonably "scientific", etc... IOW sex ed that isn't showing overtly graphic sexual imagery would NOT be banned. At least, that's what I'm gathering from reading the article.

Senate Bill 56 would allow misdemeanor charges to be filed against teachers who present materials depicting “nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse” that the “average adult person” believes “lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value.”

IOW if it's content that has reasonable educational or scientific value, it doesn't fall under this bill.

 

[Paulos23]

Do you know what's being taught in today's "sex ed" classes, though? People of our generation were usually taught from relatively dry, basic, non-interesting books and illustrations. You know, this is a uterus, this is a ball, this is a condom, insert giggling and blushing from the students. Kids today are being taught how to mutually touch each other as part of "sex ed". Is that something you want your 12 year old learning? I was lucky enough to intercept a permission slip that my son's school sent home for a special assembly they were going to have with a local Planned Parenthood representative, to teach a sex ed class. I later learned that some of the material included in that class were things that would make some of us have our hair stand on end. I was thoroughly disgusted that they were bringing this garbage into a middle school. I wonder how many parents signed that permission slip, thinking it would be something harmless, or helpful, without bothering to find out themselves what materials would be taught to their own children.

My young self wished they taught some of that, it would have avoided years of fumbling well into my thirties. But maybe your right and that part should be done only with consent of the parent. But still, if they taught that there wouldn't be need of youtube channels on sex questions with information that I wished I had when I was younger.

 

[Inkachu]

Oh but children are not being sexualised as a precursor to lowering the age of consent though, are they....

Or do you change your view dependent on which thread you post in?

You've never seen me say that children aren't being sexualized.

And don't derail the thread.

 

[Inkachu]

My young self wished they taught some of that, it would have avoided years of fumbling well into my thirties. But maybe your right and that part should be done only with consent of the parent. But still, if they taught that there wouldn't be need of youtube channels on sex questions with information that I wished I had when I was younger.

That is NOT something that is the responsibility of a school to teach! My goodness. That's something for people to discover on their own. It's nobody else's job to tell me what my own sexuality will be as I mature into an adult. That's my job to discover. There are plenty of resources out there for adults to use if they've reached adulthood and still have questions about basic sexual functions.

 

[Inkfingers]

You've never seen me say that children aren't being sexualized.

And don't derail the thread.

That must have been a different Inkachu then who was ranting at me about how my claims were wrong that paedophilia will be decriminalised in this country and its already happening through the sexualisation of children.

Ahhh okey doke.....

 

[Inkachu]

That must have been a different Inkachu then.

Bait on, my friend. Bait on.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Senate Bill 56 would allow misdemeanor charges to be filed against teachers who present materials depicting “nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse” that the “average adult person” believes “lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value.”

I think that's far too broadly worded. So broadly worded, in fact, that it could either be absolutely meaningless or it could effectively criminalize anything sexually oriented.

I also wonder why the exclusions for literary and political values are mentioned.

In the end, I'd call foul on the bill--I'm against charging teachers with misdemeanors for teaching the material they're given to teach. Especially so, given the vague language employed.

 

[Inkfingers]

Bait on, my friend. Bait on.

No baiting involved.

On the thread I started you were part of a 20 page rant selection against my claim that paedophilia is being normalised and will be decriminalised, not least through the sexualisation of children.

Now though you are recognising with horror that they are being sexualised.

I'd just like to know which is your actual view?

 

[Belk]

Kansas Republicans want to criminalize teaching about sex, nude art, and ?harmful? books

what is wrong with the US? What I find funny is they talk about this horribly offensive sex education postre, and I'm picturing something like the ipod comercials or such...no it's just a sheet of paper with lists of thing including oral sex and grinding...that is so offensive they must have issues with sex education? In a part of the US that already has out of control teen pregnancies....

The war against knowledge continues.

 

[keith99]

Quote feature not working.

Inkachu seems to be the only one who noticed the bill in question does not criminalize anything. In fact what it does is remove a special protection for teachers, nothing more.

So now a teacher can be prosecuted for saying or showing something that would get someone else prosecuted for showing or saying it on a street corner.

Hardly the end of the world. I would prefer some clearing method so teachers can know certain materials are safe. While I sometimes think Shakespeare is overrated I don't want half his stuff to be off the table because one line out of an entire play might offend some fool.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

So now a teacher can be prosecuted for saying or showing something that would get someone else prosecuted for showing or saying it on a street corner.

Just offhand, what could you be prosecuted for saying or showing on a street corner?

 

[Inkachu]

I think that's far too broadly worded. So broadly worded, in fact, that it could either be absolutely meaningless or it could effectively criminalize anything sexually oriented.

I also wonder why the exclusions for literary and political values are mentioned.

In the end, I'd call foul on the bill--I'm against charging teachers with misdemeanors for teaching the material they're given to teach. Especially so, given the vague language employed.

I've yet to see a law or policy that isn't broadly worded IMO lol.

You're right that if the teachers are given the material to present, then the blame lies with whoever approved that material for the curriculum. I'm assuming that this is referring to teachers who are using materials on their own, not materials that have been pre-approved.

I don't understand the mention of "political" value, either. I can't think of any instance where my child would need to see nudity in order to effectively teach a class on politics.

 

[Inkachu]

No baiting involved.

On the thread I started you were part of a 20 page rant selection against my claim that paedophilia is being normalised and will be decriminalised, not least through the sexualisation of children.

Now though you are recognising with horror that they are being sexualised.

I'd just like to know which is your actual view?

Once again, in the other thread, I never said anything about children not being sexualized.

 

[Nithavela]

Just offhand, what could you be prosecuted for saying or showing on a street corner?

Apparently, acknowledging the existence of several sexual practices like oral sex.

 

[keith99]

Just offhand, what could you be prosecuted for saying or showing on a street corner?

Whatever falls under the current definition of inappropriate contentography.

 

[Inkachu]

The war against knowledge continues.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but for me, it's not a war against knowledge. It's a war to protect the innocence of children who are too young to make adult decisions (and I consider sexual activity to be an adult decision). It's also a war to get parents to step up and be more active in educating their own children instead of relying on an extremely flawed and biased government to do it. I am very much FOR children knowing about basic sexuality and health. I am just against it being taught to 10 and 12 year old children who are still playing with Barbies and Legos, and I am against the school teaching whatever it deems to be sexual morality instead of allowing the home and family to do that. I understand that some parents will simply refuse to tell their children anything at all, and in those unfortunate cases, I think sex ed should be an optional class offered to older children, where parental consent is required.

 

[Inkfingers]

Once again, in the other thread, I never said anything about children not being sexualized.

You discounted my argument wholesale (part of which was that sexualisation of children is part of the precursor to lowering the age of consent so that what we rightly recognise today is child abuse will become legal) and mocked my argument that paedophilia will become legal and those who oppose it will be labelled paedophobes or something akin.

It is good that you now begin to recognise this creeping agenda though; if only you had done so a day or so earlier...

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I've yet to see a law or policy that isn't broadly worded IMO lol.

You're right that if the teachers are given the material to present, then the blame lies with whoever approved that material for the curriculum. I'm assuming that this is referring to teachers who are using materials on their own, not materials that have been pre-approved.

I don't understand the mention of "political" value, either. I can't think of any instance where my child would need to see nudity in order to effectively teach a class on politics.

More and more, this bill sounds to me like something introduced for the sole reason of allowing the authors to claim that they "supported tough new laws for our childrens' education" in the next election.

 

[Inkachu]

Just offhand, what could you be prosecuted for saying or showing on a street corner?

If you stood on a street corner within view of children with a photo of bare breasts or an erect penis, you'd be in trouble.