02-08-2014, 04:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Frank
Rob, my point is,,,if McDermott is correct, and i stress correct, in his assertions in the article referenced in the op, I'm of the opinion money of the sort, $800,000 for 1700 students, could be better spent by the doe...with the prevalence and ease of access (by anyone) of porn on the net, i ask you, how much more is there to learn on the subject?
You have GOT to be kidding me. Frank. Just because YOU have a moral disconnect with programs like this does not make them wrong.
We worry about sexualizing the innocent. Guess what guys, it's already happening long before middle school. From little girls getting play makeup kits in first grade to seeing Miley Cyrus on the tube to hearing and viewing a society that objectifies women all of the damn time....you just can't logically claim that kids are innocent anymore, at least not as late as 11-13 (unless they are living in Bob McDermott's lock and key presumably religious household).
I am currently student teaching in kindergarten and already hear my kids using words like "sexy" (!). Kids actually have an awareness of sexuality LONG before middle school - many see things on TV, emulate what they see (uh, "playing house", anyone?), and so on. A 6th grader in my Georgia middle school got pregnant. There are kids everywhere that start having sex long before they have the information and the resources to protect them. Kids are curious about sex - sorry! It's try! No amount of trying to undo the very nature of biology and kids hitting puberty in elementary school (it's starting earlier due to hormones in dairy and better nutrition, among other factors) will change this. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" because this is icky to you is just ignorant.