graphic sex ed class under fire

[SuperDuper! 230]

minors will have sex just like their parents had sex when their parents tried to tell them not to have sex.

if it feels good, kids will do it. who ya trying to fool?

[Amby 490]

I couldn't figure out what Lisa was talking about on the condoms to 5th graders things, but I just saw this soooooooo maybe this is it?

PROVINCETOWN, Mass. (AP) — A new policy in a Massachusetts public school district that makes condoms available to all students, even those in elementary school, is drawing criticism from some who say it goes too far.

Provincetown School Board Chairman Peter Grosso says because there is no set age when sexual activity starts, the committee decided not to set an age for condom availability.

Under the policy, any student requesting a condom from a school nurse must first receive counseling, which includes information on abstinence. The policy does not require the school to contact parents.

The policy was approved by Provincetown's school committee June 10. It takes effect in the fall.

Kris Mineau, president of the conservative Massachusetts Family Institute, calls the idea absurd.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/24/mass-district-policy-let-elementary-school-students-condoms/?test=latestnews

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I couldn't figure out what Lisa was talking about on the condoms to 5th graders things, but I just saw this soooooooo maybe this is it?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/24/mass-district-policy-let-elementary-school-students-condoms/?test=latestnews

I guess it's one thing to have condoms and information available, it's another to actively distribute them.

Personally I think these kinds of stories are exaggerated to provoke exactly the sorts of moral outrage reactions that are evident in this thread. The truth, is probably quite mundane and far less controversial than the news reporting makes it out to be.

[Amby 490]

just saw this on the condoms for 5th graders issue

(CNN) -- Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick urged a school district to revise its policy allowing students as young as in elementary schools to get condoms if they are believed to be sexually active.

"It is simply not age appropriate to have a program in place for such young children, not to mention not having parents of such young children involved," Patrick said in a statement.

"Comprehensive reproductive health education needs to be done in an age appropriate manner."

The policy -- passed this month -- has no minimum age on supplying condoms to students. It allows nurses to give condoms to students they think are sexually active after counseling and education without informing their parents.

Provincetown school district superintendent, Beth Singer, who wrote the policy, said she wanted to ensure students of all ages requesting condoms get information on their use.

"Sex has no age limit. It's an individual scenario for each person," Singer said. "We can't put out an age for using condoms."

Singer said the policy is being misunderstood and was never intended for elementary school students.

It makes it clear that "we are against (students) being sexually active," she said.

The superintendent urged parents to discuss sex issues with their children, including letting them know that abstinence is the only safeguard.

A Provincetown school committee voted unanimously for the policy June 10. It was due to go into effect in the fall, but the committee plans to re-examine its wording amid the concerns.

Some parents in the school district decried the policy, saying it encourages children to be sexually active.

"This policy is stripping children of their innocence and making them more vulnerable to sexual predators," said Sherri Smitt, whose daughter graduated from Provincetown High School.

Evelyn Reilly of the Massachusetts Family Institute called the policy "absurd" and said it does not give parents a say.

"Sex ed allows parents to make the decision to opt their child out, this policy is essentially saying it's not the parents business if their child is having sex," Reilly said.

"It is emotionally, physically and psychologically disturbing."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/24/massachusetts.school.condoms/index.html?hpt=Sbin

[Fandango 1,440]

I guess it's one thing to have condoms and information available, it's another to actively distribute them.

Personally I think these kinds of stories are exaggerated to provoke exactly the sorts of moral outrage reactions that are evident in this thread. The truth, is probably quite mundane and far less controversial than the news reporting makes it out to be.

The fact that, under law, these schools can counsel and distribute condoms to my elementary school child, WITHOUT having to notify me is mindblowingly abhorrent. I don't feel that's 'quite mundane and far less controversial' at all. Perhaps, it's only parents and soon-to-be-parents who take this issue so seriously, *shrug* I dunno.

just saw this on the condoms for 5th graders issue

http://www.cnn.com/2...x.html?hpt=Sbin

Bye Bye Beth Singer! Bet you won't make next round of elections!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact that, under law, these schools can counsel and distribute condoms to my elementary school child, WITHOUT having to notify me is mindblowingly abhorrent. I don't feel that's 'quite mundane and far less controversial' at all. Perhaps, it's only parents and soon-to-be-parents who take this issue so seriously, *shrug* I dunno.

From today's news. There are numerous references to the "wording" of the policy, which suggests that the problem is there rather than the intent of the policy and the way it would work in practice.

[Fandango 1,440]

From today's news. There are numerous references to the "wording" of the policy, which suggests that the problem is there rather than the intent of the policy and the way it would work in practice.

Regardless of intent, wording, etc....it has passed as its been written, which gives elementary school kids access to condoms without their parents consent, or knowledge of. The end result is still the same, regardless where the 'issue' is, and that's a real problem.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But if the policy is going to be reworded - as is being suggested - then surely there is no actual problem.

[Fandango 1,440]

But if the policy is going to be reworded - as is being suggested - then surely there is no actual problem.

Are you kidding me? It should have never been passed as it was written, and the fact that it was shows a total lack of common sense with that school board. I'd oust the lot of em.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are you kidding me? It should have never been passed as it was written, and the fact that it was shows a total lack of common sense with that school board. I'd oust the lot of em.

Perhaps it shouldn't - but if it is going to be revised and reworded, then surely there isn't a problem.

I know you are outraged about this, I just don't find it particularly controversial in the light of it being an issue with wording and not of intent.

[Fandango 1,440]

Perhaps it shouldn't - but if it is going to be revised and reworded, then surely there isn't a problem.

I know you are outraged about this, I just don't find it particularly controversial in the light of it being an issue with wording and not of intent.

As I said, it's a very serious problem when a bunch of adults can pass it unanimously as written, and only deal with a problem of 'wording' once the backlash starts.

Policy is policy, it passed as written...so as written, a 4th grader could have gotten condoms WITHOUT his/her parents consent or even knowledge! What kind of world are we living in when that even gets ONE vote as written????

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But if the kid was going to have sex anyway - would they be likely to tell you about it?

[Fandango 1,440]

But if the kid was going to have sex anyway - would they be likely to tell you about it?

That is a whole separate issue, come on now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That is a whole separate issue, come on now.

Why is it a separate issue?

[Amby 490]

peep, I think the baby hormones are making you mad!