Sister Toldjah just doesn’t understand: of course the public schools know how to rear children better than do parents!

From North Carolina’s best looking blogger:


Condoms for kiddies: Because “sexual experimentation is not limited to an age”


Posted by: Sister Toldjah on June 24, 2010 at 9:58 am

Dangerously stuck on stupid in Provincetown, MA:

Students in Provincetown – from elementary to high school – will be able to get free condoms at school, under a policy passed earlier this month, even though their parents might object.

“We know that sexual experimentation is not limited to an age, so how does one put an age on it?” said Superintendent Beth Singer, who wrote the policy unanimously passed two weeks ago by the Cape Cod town’s School Committee.

“It’s about availability; we’re not handing ‘em out like M&M’s,” said committee chairman Peter Grosso.

The policy, which requires school nurses to supply condoms to any student who asks, was met with criticism by some parents, particularly over the possibility of preschoolers acquiring condoms. But Singer insists that if an especially young child requests a condom, the nurse will ask the student’s motive and act accordingly.

Further down:

Please read that sentence again: ‘”We do know from research” that children now have sex at a younger age.’

Children. Not teens or young adults. But CHILDREN.

Not outraged enough? Read on:

Jeanmarie Kaeselau, 41, who has a fifth- and an eighth-grader in the school system, said today that she is uncomfortable with the policy, which takes effect next school year.

“That’s a little weird,” she said, adding that she would be “uncomfortable” if her fifth-grade son came home with a condom. “I’d rather have him come to me.”

But Kaeselau will not have a say if her son wishes to get a condom at school next year. The policy does not require schools to alert parents if their children receive condoms and prohibits schools from denying students whose parents object.

“[P]rohibits schools from denying students whose parents object”?? For heaven’s sake, this article pretty much speaks for itself. This is what happens when there is a failure to distinguish good from bad and right from wrong – and when liberals gain control of school boards and “school committees.” I hate to say it but it’s true. There’s just no denying it anymore. Both educational and personal decisions about children get taken out of the hands of parents and put into the hands of “educators” who think they know what’s best for your children.

All emphasis in Sis’ original, where Sis has much, much more.

But one thing is clear: it seems that Sister Toldjah, who is neither a parent nor a professional, trained educator, just doesn’t understand that our public school teachers and administrators simply know much, much better how children should be reared than do untrained parents! ¹ After all, we know how professional our teachers are, as well as how concerned they are about their students emotional development.

Fortunately, our children recognize how much better teachers and the public school systems are in guiding their development, and just naturally listen to their teachers more closely.

OK, getting away from the sarcasm for a bit — how long I’ll be able to resist is as yet unknown — it seems to me that the policy “prohibits schools from denying (condoms to) students whose parents object,” the school has not only decided that the education professionals know better than the parents how the parents’ children are to be reared, but that the schools have also adopted a policy of superseding parental rights, responsibility and authority.

Perhaps I’m just too much of a traditionalist, but I always thought that the purpose of our education system was to educate our children. But when I read that three out of four high school students in Oklahoma can’t name our first President, or that 14% of American adults “can’t read a newspaper or the instruction on a bottle of pills,” that only 65% of Alabama high school students earn a diploma in four years, that one out of every five high school graduates cannot read his diploma, it occurs to me that perhaps our schools need to get a lot better at performing their (purported) function of educating our children before they take on the job of rearing them for us as well.
___________________________
¹ – It occurred to me that if I didn’t include the specific sarcasm notification, some people wouldn’t get it.

57 Comments

  1. “[P]rohibits schools from denying students whose parents object”?? For heaven’s sake, this article pretty much speaks for itself.

    Mmm – ‘cos it’s so much better if the school lets teens fuck unprotected.

  2. The Phoenician — I wonder if he’s a parent himself — wrote:

    Mmm – ‘cos it’s so much better if the school lets teens fuck unprotected.

    Oddly enough, I didn’t know that the school bore the responsibility for supervising teens’ sex lives.

    It’s hard to know when our Kiwi Kommenter is being serious, but the serious part of the article concerns whether the public schools ought to have the authority this particular school district has arrogated to itself. And remember: school attendance in the United States is (supposedly) compulsory.

  3. Again Pho misreads. Dana Pico’s article was referring not to teens (bad enough) but to children. What part of “elementary” do you not understand?

  4. Yeah, we should just expect kids to not behave like adolescent human beings, unlike every single generation in every single culture in the history of the world and before. That’ll work, right? Our moral uprightness will make it all work. Ignoring the problem will make it go away, right?

    And if STD’s continue to spread unabated, we’ll just assume the devil did it. Or teh gay!

    Let’s deal with the Global War on Terror the same way we deal with sex education, okay? If we just pretend we’ve already won, we don’t need to give our troops weapons and ammunition, or train them to use weapons. They’re so young and tender! If we give our troops weapons, it will just encourage firefights with bad people. If we go ahead and declare ourselves pure and moral, then bad people won’t exist anymore, and we can all have peace and do whatever we want in other countries!

    Oh, and if attacks happen, and our good kids in uniform get killed, somehow, then, it’s obviously the fault of gay people and rock music.

  5. Yeah, we should just expect kids to not behave like adolescent human beings, unlike every single generation in every single culture in the history of the world and before. That’ll work, right? Our moral uprightness will make it all work. Ignoring the problem will make it go away, right?

    Nagleator: as Dana Pico has pointed out, elementary school is not made up of adolescents. Elementary school typically involves 5 – 10 year old children.

    At a public, televised meeting June 8, the five-member School Committee voted 4-0 to approve Singer’s plan. (One member was absent.) “No one came to comment,” Singer said, noting all five committee member have children.

    Assuming the Provincetown school board is run like most typically are, there would have been a 72-hour window with the agenda posted for the next meeting, including date, time, and a detailed list of issues being addressed and open for public comment. Unfortunately and ultimately, the onus for this being approved lay at the feet of the parents (and residents in general) within the school district boundary.

    Why on earth did no one show up – let alone hundreds – to make their disapproval known? Perhaps they didn’t see anything wrong with the potential policy?

    A school board is not going to hold strong against an angry tirade of parents strenuously objecting to a decision they do not want. Board members are elected officials and it’s always tough getting re-elected, let alone when having made an incredibly unpopular decision.

    Apparently, however, it wasn’t all that unpopular. Which opens up a whole other can of troubling worms.

  6. Other Dana: “…it wasn’t all that unpopular. Which opens up a whole other can of troubling worms.”

    P-town is not Main Street, USA. They don’t feel bound by other people’s unwritten rules.

    As for 5-10 year-olds getting condoms… that seems an unnecessary expense. Not dangerous, just unnecessary. Kids aren’t more than mildly curious about it, at that age. They can’t be. And if they somehow are, then condom availability or lack thereof won’t make much of a difference.

    If someone handed you a hyperdrive, yet no spaceship or exotic fuel with which to use it, I’m guessing it will collect dust, and you won’t be running into any black holes. No harm, no foul.

  7. Concerned parents around the world need to understand today’s global management system which merges labor and “lifelong learning” with socialist ideology, psycho-social manipulation and high tech monitoring. Only then, can we take our stand, equip our children and prepare for the future.

    Read this to see where indoctrination education comes from:

    http://www.crossroad.to/charts/soviet-us-ed.htm

  8. Oddly enough, I didn’t know that the school bore the responsibility for supervising teens’ sex lives.

    Strangely enough, I don’t think parents are really able to supervise teens’ sex lives either.

    Again Pho misreads. Dana Pico’s article was referring not to teens (bad enough) but to children.

    Uh-huh.

    The policy, which requires school nurses to supply condoms to any student who asks, was met with criticism by some parents, particularly over the possibility of preschoolers acquiring condoms. But Singer insists that if an especially young child requests a condom, the nurse will ask the student’s motive and act accordingly.

    “If that were to happen, we would deal with it in a professional and appropriate way,” she said. “I don’t anticipate that this policy is going to affect youngsters. It’s there for adolescents. … We do know from research” that children now have sex at a younger age.”

    Tell us again about the misreading, Hoagie. Idiot.

    As far as I can see, this follows from a simple policy decision – either you choose to supply condoms through schools or you don’t. IF you have chosen to supply condoms through schools, then it follows that (i) you don’t go telling the parents, since this would prevent adolescents from seeking them and (ii) you don’t apply judgements on who may or may not have them, since this would prevent adolescents from seeking them.

    Parents may think it is “icky” – but the details of the policy follow automatically from that first decision. And on pragmatic grounds, it is a good decision.

  9. As for 5-10 year-olds getting condoms… that seems an unnecessary expense.

    I have been reliably informed that under 25s here can get condoms for free; over-25s can get a prescription for $6 a pack (of 12). They cost around $13 or so at the supermarkets. That’s the price in NZ$ – how much do they cost in the Excited Snakes?

  10. The Phoenician wrote:

    Oddly enough, I didn’t know that the school bore the responsibility for supervising teens’ sex lives.

    Strangely enough, I don’t think parents are really able to supervise teens’ sex lives either.

    More than you might think we can; it depends upon how good parents we are.

    The school, on the other hand, has seized authority it ought not have, and if you read the original article, you’ll see that their answer is never no; it’s always yes.

    What I see here is the responses from two of our liberal regulars who have — though less in Nangleator’s responses — assumed that parents are not up to the job of child rearing, therefore defending the notion that the schools should have some authority here. Yet neither has noted the point that the public schools haven’t been doing an outstandingly good job in performing their primary function of late, and that it hardly seems reasonable that they ought to be taking on additional work.

  11. This tiny thing is not ‘parenting’ in my opinion. Sure, it’s easy to say, “I don’t want schools making that decision for me!”

    But you have no problem with schools deciding where your kids sit and what classrooms they sit in, and whether they should be reading or testing right now. Schools decide when they’ll have lunch, and how far they have to walk between classes. Schools also decide which teachers, and to a limited extent, what gets taught and how.

    That’s WAY more influential than the availability of condoms.

    So, how do you think this strategy will work on the Global War on Terror? The War on Drugs? Immigration problems? (I’ve got Arizona’s solution right here, and no one has to get sued!)

  12. More than you might think we can; it depends upon how good parents we are.

    Less than you think, no matter how good parents you think you are.

    I’d have to dig out the research, but there was a paper which caused quite a kerfuffle a short while back – when you get to junior college, peer social relations become way more important in influence than the parents – which isn’t surprising in an evolutionary sense, since your peers are going to be the ones who determine whether you “make it” or not.

    Take a look at just how well “purity pledges” and the like work in moderating sexual behaviour (i.e. not very well at all)

  13. If parents had as much control over kids lives as they think, our race would be extinct.

  14. this is a perfect example of liberals staying out of the bedrooms and breeches of its citizens…

    good grief, does it get any clearer than this?

    [Dripping sarcasm added by DRP, ro replace the word AOTC used]

  15. I agree with nk. Considering all the perverts spawned by the left from ALGORE and the Kennedy’s to Roman Polanski, Clinton and Gary Condit, we can’t be too safe with our kids, now can we?

  16. assovertincups, you don’t get that this is the absence of a bedroom law, and not the continued imposition of an old one?

  17. I think you’re missing the point here, Dana. Even if a parent puts in their best effort to shelter their kid from all things sexual, they’re still going to get it on with someone at some point. And if a student is going to have sex, they should feel comfortable getting protection for it without having to let their disapproving parents know.

    Schools aren’t making any decision here. Students are making the decision. Schools are just ensuring that said decision can be made with a minimum of negative consequences.

  18. Correct, Jeff. You can’t keep your kids from making mistakes. They probably need to make mistakes. The best you can hope for is that the consequences aren’t permanent.

    Condoms are hugely effective at preventing permanent consequences.

  19. “If that were to happen, we would deal with it in a professional and appropriate way,” she said. “I don’t anticipate that this policy is going to affect youngsters. It’s there for adolescents. … We do know from research” that children now have sex at a younger age.”

    You misread this, Phoe: She said she “doesn’t anticipate” that happening. She doesn’t know that it won’t, however. Also, logically, if we give you the benefit of the doubt (and her as well), and you don’t believe it will affect 5-10 year olds, why include them in the policy in the first place? Why not just make it for high schoolers as had originally been proposed, according to the link article? Obviously there is an anticipation that it will affect them.

    Mmm – ‘cos it’s so much better if the school lets teens fuck unprotected.

    What you clearly don’t understand is that to many parents sex is not just a fuck. It’s far, far more than, coming with responsibility and commitment – and is not be treated as a throwaway act. And that is what many parents attempt to impart to the children. I know you have no understanding of this or concept, but that is also why there is an objection to this policy. By default, the school has now reinforced the it’s just a fuck mentality by passing out the condoms. They’ve made a moral judgment for other people’s children. Where to line up, when to go to class, what time lunch is are not moral judgments.

    Parents may think it is “icky” – but the details of the policy follow automatically from that first decision. And on pragmatic grounds, it is a good decision.

    Your patronizing ignorance speaks for itself. Get back to me when you have children and are responsible for them…that is, assuming *you* will indeed assume responsibility for them and not abdicate them to the state as the parents of Provincetown have. But based on what you’ve written, I’m not hopeful. It’s just so easy for people with your mindset to weenie out and let others do the hard work of parenting. Par for the course.

    Tell us again about the misreading, Hoagie. Idiot.

    Actually, Hoagie is not being the idiot here.

  20. Okay, Other Dana, look at it from this side. Two equal schools in equal neighborhoods. One has the school condom program, the other doesn’t. Which one has more teen pregnancy? Which one has more STD infection?

    You keep saying ‘parenting’ as if the parents are doing it. You act like this program is interfering in something that actually exists.

  21. Other Dana: What you clearly don’t understand is that to many parents sex is not just a fuck. It’s far, far more than, coming with responsibility and commitment – and is not be treated as a throwaway act. And that is what many parents attempt to impart to the children.

    Other Dana, I think you’re still missing the point. The key is in your words in that last sentence: “attempt to impart. Sometimes it’s successful, sometimes it isn’t. How can we expect 16-year-olds to follow everything their parents say? Do you, and everyone you know, have the exact same value system as your parents? Of course not, and that’s the point. No matter how much parents try to impart their values on their child, sometimes it just ain’t gonna work. So should young people decide to have sex despite their parents’ exhortations, they ought to have the option to do so safely.

  22. So should young people decide to have sex despite their parents’ exhortations, they ought to have the option to do so safely.

    Then let them buy rubbers at the drug store. Kids will do drugs, too. Should the school be handing out “Safe” needles … ???

  23. Then let them buy rubbers at the drug store. Kids will do drugs, too. Should the school be handing out “Safe” needles … ???

    The thought is that buying condoms from the store is often embarrassing and, as anyone who has tried to do so has discovered, often a lot more difficult than it should be (so many stores down here have them locked behind a counter). Young people are a lot more likely to use protection if it’s available confidentially through the school nurse.

    As for drugs, I’m probably the wrong person for that comparison since I think drug prohibition is wrong as well :-) Those who believe in drug prohibition will probably tell you that drugs are illegal while sex is not.

    Otherwise, the direct consequences of unsafe sex (potentially life-threatening STDs, pregnancy) are a lot more serious than the direct consequences of drug use (non-government-approved high). Diseases are spread through needle sharing, but a lot of governments have established needle exchanges that are rather effective. So yeah, actually, providing an anonymous needle exchange through schools might not be a horrible idea.

  24. As snarky as Yorkshire’s comment on Provincetown was, it’s not inconsequential and actually demonstrates my point somewhat. Young people learn their morals not just from their parents but also from their peers and the culture in which they live. In a libertine culture like Provincetown, kids are going to be more likely to doubt their parents if said parents tell them that sex is only for straight married grown-ups.

  25. Jeff:
    As snarky as Yorkshire’s comment on Provincetown was, it’s not inconsequential and actually demonstrates my point somewhat. Young people learn their morals not just from their parents but also from their peers and the culture in which they live. In a libertine culture like Provincetown, kids are going to be more likely to doubt their parents if said parents tell them that sex is only for straight married grown-ups.

    You might think snarky, but the story did not put Provincetown in context.

  26. “Yeah, we should just expect kids to not behave like adolescent human beings, unlike every single generation in every single culture in the history of the world and before. That’ll work, right? Our moral uprightness will make it all work. Ignoring the problem will make it go away, right?”

    That remark, ridiculous in its insinuations, demonstrates why trying to reason with emotionalists, i.e., modern liberal fantasists, is futile.

  27. Wait, DNW, you’re out there claiming that parents can keep their kids from having sex if they only try hard enough, a premise completely disproved by thousands of years of human experience, and we’re the emotionalists? Say what you will about relying on reason vs. emotion, but it’s pretty clear who’s on what side here.

  28. There you have it, the loony left on display with not even the usual trench coat to hide their shame.

  29. There you have it, the loony left on display without even the usual trench coat to hide their shame.

  30. “Wait, DNW, you’re out there claiming that parents can keep their kids from having sex if they only try hard enough, a premise completely disproved by thousands of years of human experience, …”

    I’m not suggesting you hold your breath and grunt real hard till you turn red in the face while hoping; no not that.

    Nor even that what some parents can successfully do for their offspring, you or yours are also up to doing.

    I’m just suggesting that you – progressives – have created the psychologically infantile conditions that have almost literally bitten those who act as you suggest all people must inevitably act, in their physical asses.

    And your only solution is to resign even more of what little control over your own life you ever desired in the first place, to public, i.e., government institutions.

    So, anyway let’s rhetorically ask what the STD rate was among teenagers in the oppressive old 1950′s?

    Oh wait, they were all using condoms back then?

    No “sexual revolution” of permissive values since? Or, maybe it’s better that youth now eventually die of AIDS and cervical cancers than suffer neuroses generated by sexual inhibitions?

    Same now as it ever was, same as it ever was, then?

    Maybe to this extent: I acknowledge that there are plenty of stupid, incompetent, and incontinent people – You left-wing infantilists are proof of it even in those few instances when you don’t come from severely dysfunctional families – who are driven more by impulse than reason, and are incapable of being successfully guided by even the best of parents to the kind of self-governing maturity that status as a political equal in a regime of liberty, requires.

    I’m just saying in addition, that it hasn’t always been the same, always and everywhere, as you clowns are suggesting.

    Here. From just one of about 200,000 or more news stories on the same topic in the last several years:

    Forget about the latest political sex scandal; federal health officials have quietly made some sex news that actually matters. A study this month discovered that more than one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted infection. And, sadly, researchers found blacks once again hardest hit by a health problem: A whopping half of African-American teens in the study had an STI. …

    But before you start wagging fingers and passing judgment, there’s another set of stats about youth sexual health that don’t get reported as often. CDC studies have consistently found that black youths – male and female, gay and straight – are not leading terribly risky sex lives compared with their peers, and in many cases they are in fact far more responsible. …it’s true that black youths report more active sex lives than their peers. They’re more likely to have had sex, to start by age 13 and to have multiple sex partners in their lifetime. …

    But among all students who report having sex, black youths are less likely to do so in ways most people would consider risky. They are more likely to use condoms. They are far more likely to be sober when they have sex. And they are far more likely to get HIV tests….”

    Yes folks, another social planning and values triumph for the Demo/progressives of the left.

    Now, boys, go and argue with someone who thinks there is something to dispute about on this topic, since I am not one of them.

  31. The thought is that buying condoms from the store is often embarrassing

    Why? The drug store isn’t going to “Judge” them, they just want to make a sale. If the kid wants to engage in sex, with or without his parents’ approval, then let them assume responsibility for protection. How much are rubbers, anyway, less than a dollar apiece? That’s a buck a fuck, not very expensive at all when you think about it.

  32. I think you’re missing the point here, Dana. Even if a parent puts in their best effort to shelter their kid from all things sexual, they’re still going to get it on with someone at some point. And if a student is going to have sex, they should feel comfortable getting protection for it without having to let their disapproving parents know.

    Schools aren’t making any decision here. Students are making the decision. Schools are just ensuring that said decision can be made with a minimum of negative consequences.

    Jeff, I think you’re missing the point here. It doesn’t matter if the parent’s best efforts still result in their kid having sex, the issue is, it’s not the school’s responsibility nor place to pass out condoms, especially apart from the parent’s knowledge or permission. The school is not a part of the familial structure nor does it have the right to presume to. I’m not a parent who abdicated my responsibilities nor turned to the school to do the heavy lifting for me. I took the job more seriously than any other thing I’ve ever done in my life.

    School are indeed making the decision here. Just as easily they could make the decision to stay out of it and let parents assume their own responsibilities. And it’s just pure ignorance or naivete to believe that they are just ensuring that having sex be made with less consequences. The implications of what the school is doing runs far deeper and more seriously than a little rubber condom. Think bigger and consider the moral decision they are imparting to students and giving approval to, think about the unintended consequences of that, and think about the further reach into private lives this decision has.

  33. Thankfully, they are rethinking the issue after being assailed by parent complaints and Governor Deval Patrick expressing his concerns.>

    This is what common sense looks like:

    Town Manager Sharon Lynn said she would prefer a system requiring parental consent until children reach a certain age.

    “I think the parents should be responsible for (their children), and know what their children are doing,” Lynn told the Globe.

  34. I’m sure now all the parents will change and no P-town kids will have sex until they’re married.

    Repressed people, repressive people and viruses celebrate the news!

  35. You misread this, Phoe: She said she “doesn’t anticipate” that happening. She doesn’t know that it won’t, however. Also, logically, if we give you the benefit of the doubt (and her as well), and you don’t believe it will affect 5-10 year olds, why include them in the policy in the first place?

    Go back and read : “IF you have chosen to supply condoms through schools, then it follows that (i) you don’t go telling the parents, since this would prevent adolescents from seeking them and (ii) you don’t apply judgements on who may or may not have them, since this would prevent adolescents from seeking them.”

    The moment schools start saying “YOU can have them but YOU can’t”, the policy becomes less effective for all.

    What you clearly don’t understand is that to many parents sex is not just a fuck. It’s far, far more than, coming with responsibility and commitment – and is not be treated as a throwaway act.

    What you don’t understand that if the parent is involved in their children’s sexual lives, it’s already a felony. The simple reality is that parents don’t make their children’s choices for them – and children are often stupid.

    And that is what many parents attempt to impart to the children.

    Good for them. But wishing and hoping do not determine reality.

    I know you have no understanding of this or concept,

    You have no idea what I do in the bedroom, nor do you get a say in it. The only people who matter are me and the woman I share my bed with. Strangely enough, this is what most teenagers tend to think about their parents.

    Are you people really so divorced from reality that you can’t remember your teen years? When you start exploring the other gender – kissing, touching, sex – the very first impulse is to keep it from your parents. It’s an intensely private thing; that’s part of the appeal.

    And kids, as I have pointed out, are usually stupid. Condoms mitigate some of teh consequences of that.

    I’m sure now all the parents will change and no P-town kids will have sex until they’re married.

    Having had a friend get pregnant at 14, leaving school at 15, I’m for making condoms *compulsory*. Make it a requirement that teens carry a couple in their bags and carry out inspections.

    (I’ll clarify here that I wasn’t responsible for said friend’s condition)

  36. So, anyway let’s rhetorically ask what the STD rate was among teenagers in the oppressive old 1950’s?

    About as high as they are now for syphillis, the major disease tracked back then.

    At least at the start of the fifties. What bought them down was antibiotics and public education.

    It doesn’t matter if the parent’s best efforts still result in their kid having sex, the issue is, it’s not the school’s responsibility nor place to pass out condoms, especially apart from the parent’s knowledge or permission.

    A decision that, pragmatically, leads to higher teen pregnancies and STD rates. Well done – your moralising makes you feel better, but leads to worse results for the people involved.

  37. Other Dana: The implications of what the school is doing runs far deeper and more seriously than a little rubber condom. Think bigger and consider the moral decision they are imparting to students and giving approval to, think about the unintended consequences of that, and think about the further reach into private lives this decision has.

    I guess I simply don’t buy that the school even has the ability to impart “approval” upon anything. A young person’s values are generally determined by their parents and their peers (not necessarily in that order). As Dana P. points out, the school’s main duty is to provide concrete education in math, science, English, etc. and I think most students recognize that. This is why most sex-ed programs have such mixed results (I once ran the numbers on abstinence-only funding and teen pregnancy and found no correlation one way or the other). The school isn’t approving of teenage sex any more than a doctor who gives out chemotherapy for lung cancer is approving of smoking – rather, it’s mitigating the results of decisions that teenagers are already making.

    I’m reminded of the pilot of “The West Wing,” where someone says to Toby, “Show the average teenage male a condom and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust.” Toby replies, “Show the average teenage male a lug wrench and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust.” The presence of condoms in schools will not affect teenagers’ decisions one bit, nor will it undermine the teachings of any parents. It will, however, decrease the rate of STD transmission and teen pregnancy, which I think we all can agree is a good thing.

    Besides. I don’t want my daughter to have sex before she’s grown up and out of the house, but if she chooses to ignore me and do so anyway, I’d just as soon her partner use protection. And again, I think you and most parents would agree with me there.

    And DNW, teen pregnancy and STD infection rates have all gone down dramatically in recent years from their high in the early ’90s. Whatever your fond memories of the ’50s may be, the cat’s out of the bag now and we aren’t getting it back in. Might as well deal the best we can with what we have, eh?

  38. Otherwise, the direct consequences of unsafe sex (potentially life-threatening STDs, pregnancy) are a lot more serious than the direct consequences of drug use (non-government-approved high).

    I think you underestimate the effects of drug use, especially hard drug use. If you’ve ever seen a cokehead in action (and I have) it totally dominates their life, and they will often go into ruin just to keep getting more coke.

    As for the rest, we’re still talking about children here, in this case elementary school children, who have no business having sex of any kind. To use another analogy, it would be like having adults run parties for the kids with alcohol being served. Sure, it is technically illegal for kids to drink whereas sex is not illegal for them, but it still sets a bad example, even though we “Know” kids are going to drink anyway.

  39. What you don’t understand that if the parent is involved in their children’s sexual lives, it’s already a felony.

    WTF???? I think somebody has grossly misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted a comment.

  40. Nangleator sums up the liberal response in just two sentences:

    You (the much better looking Dana) keep saying ‘parenting’ as if the parents are doing it. You act like this program is interfering in something that actually exists.

    Actually, the other Dana is a parent; here’s a picture of her daughter and son-in-law. I’m guessing that she has some actual experience in being a mother. Yorkshire has an adult son, who is professionally accomplished and spent a few months in Iraq. Me, I have two daughters, both of whom managed to make it all the way through high school, earn their diplomas, and not get knocked up in the process.

    Who knows, perhaps my daughters turned out OK in spite of me rather than because I did anything positive. But I can assure you that my wife and I didn’t just ignore them as they were growing up.

    Nangleator’s comment assumes that no one is doing any rearing of their own children, and then assumes further that, in such absence, the public schools ought to do it for us. Yet where I have two daughters, teachers have what, twenty to thirty in a class; how will they be able to spend more time rearing the children over whom they are asserting supersessionary authority when they now have so many for whom to care?

    Nor does it seem that the schools ought to have the time to take over this job in the first place, when they have not proven themselves to be so great at their primary function, teaching reading, writing and arithmetic.

    Nangleator’s comment demonstrates the problem. He sees parents as not doing a good job of rearing their children, which quickly becomes all parents failing in child rearing. He then leaped for the typical response: we’ll just turn it over to the government professionals.

  41. Eric wrote:

    The thought is that buying condoms from the store is often embarrassing (Jeff)

    Why? The drug store isn’t going to “Judge” them, they just want to make a sale. If the kid wants to engage in sex, with or without his parents’ approval, then let them assume responsibility for protection. How much are rubbers, anyway, less than a dollar apiece? That’s a buck a fuck, not very expensive at all when you think about it.

    I can walk into the Giant Food Mart on Blakeslee Boulevard in Lehighton, and walk right up to a display of condoms, across the aisle from the contact lens solution, and down a bit from the shampoo and toothpaste and tampons. I can pick up as many as I want, within the limits of the displayed inventory, and then go to the self-serve checkout line. Where’s the “judgement” involved in that?

    There would actually be more potential for embarrassment in having to ask someone specific, like the school nurse, for condoms than it would be to just buy them in the store. They are cheap and easily available, but, for our friends on the left, it seems as though contraception and condoms are available only from the schools, and, without the schools passing them out, they would be wholly unavailable.

  42. The solution from New Zealand:

    Having had a friend get pregnant at 14, leaving school at 15, I’m for making condoms *compulsory*. Make it a requirement that teens carry a couple in their bags and carry out inspections.

    Why don’t you mandate that they be somehow super-glued on the boys, so they can’t possibly screw around while leaving the things in their wallets? Admittedly, there’s be problems when the guys have to urinate, but I’m sure we can work that out; perhaps BP could install some sort of device which only allowed the escape of fluids specified.

    I just love the way some people think they have the right to rear other people’s children.

  43. Jeff wrote:

    I guess I simply don’t buy that the school even has the ability to impart “approval” upon anything. A young person’s values are generally determined by their parents and their peers (not necessarily in that order).

    Really? I’d be willing to bet that you’d absolutely support the type of socialization the schools currently attempt, for “diversity education,” all sorts of programs to instruct young people not to discriminate against others who may be “different.” President Obama appointed Kevin Jennings to be Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools, due to Mr Jennings’ work with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN),

    a local volunteer group in the Boston area bringing together lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and straight teachers, parents, students, and community members who wanted to end anti-LGBT bias in the state’s K-12 schools.

    Obviously some people believe that the public schools have “the ability to impart “approval” (or disapproval)” on some things. Apparently some people believe that the public schools have some ability to help determine a “young person’s values.”

  44. This would make the young bugger think about sex again

    Rapex, a Female Condom-Like Anti-Rape DeviceRapex is about to be patented in South Africa
    By Robert Ursache, Gadgets Editor

    I’m sure you heard about all kinds of anti-rape devices. You know, belts that once installed, couldn’t allow rapists to hold victims down and open the protection belt at the same time. Well, now there are other anti-rape solutions.

    Rapex is a condom-like anti-rape device which has fish-like teeth. Once introduced in the vagina, Rapex may damage the head and the shaft of the penis. Apparently, this should give assaulted women vital seconds-time to escape the very concerned rapist.

    The news that such a device may soon be patented stirred some controversy around the world. Its inventor, Mrs. Sonnet Ehlers, said that the device is in its final pre-production phase after seven years of waiting. “This product can come to the market anytime now. The stage to wait and check if there are any patent infringements will be up on April 10,” said Ehlers from her Kleinmond home.

    “The surprise factor will give women a chance to escape,” says Ehlers. Apparently, once “trapped outside” by Rapex, the rapist would feel great pain as the 25 teeth attach themselves to the shaft of the penis. Ehlers also mentioned one of the device’s big breakthroughs: rapists will be easily identified using scientific proof.

    Ehlers talked a lot in the media about Rapex. She appeared on radio talk shows in England and Australia. Critics said that such a device is dangerous because it might infuriate the rapist and thus victims will be even more vulnerable to violence. Even Rape Crisis Cape Town disagreed by declaring that this kind of strange “medieval” devices are not a good solution for rape as a social problem.

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Rapex-A-Female-Condom-Like-Anti-Rape-Device-49887.shtml

  45. What you don’t understand that if the parent is involved in their children’s sexual lives, it’s already a felony.

    WTF???? I think somebody has grossly misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted a comment.

    I keep forgetting wingnut literalness.

    You wrote : “What you clearly don’t understand is that to many parents sex is not just a fuck.”

    My point is “Yeah – so?”. Parents do not control the sex lives of their kids. Unless they’re one of the parties concerned (hello, felony), they have no real way to control how their kid sees sex, whether they choose to do it, or with whom. They can seek to influence, sure, but the delusion of control is a typical wingnut fantasy.

    Teens, and these days even kids, fuck. Even the “good” ones. Thems the facts.

  46. Phoe, I’m going to speak slowly:

    Parents are charged with the responsibility of instilling in their children the values, morals and ethics that they see fit. It is their responsibility. It comes with the decision to make a child and bring them into this world. Now some parents will rise to the occasion and assume that responsibility with the brevity it deserves. Some won’t. But that does not change the fact that it is still the parents’ responsibility – not some do-gooder at a school. The problem seems to be that there are too many people who believe they know best for parents, and too many parents willing to abdicate their responsibilities to those do-gooders. The kid loses out in the end.

    I have raised a daughter and two sons. It has been the hardest job my husband and I have ever had. Whether it’s because of or in spite of us (as Dana Pico points out), or simply the grace of God that they’ve hit their mid-20′s and still hold onto the values that we worked to instill in them is anybody’s guess. But that being said, at any time they could have quite easily gone for the throwaway fuck. But they chose not to. That’s 100% success rate in my home and I would venture to guess, knowing the unspectacular parent I’ve been, that that is not the great rarity it’s touted to be. Dana Pico also has older girls who have managed to get through this part of life without a pregnancy.

    My point is, it’s about control when they’re small and young (of course). It’s not about control when their older, because by then whatever groundwork has been laid (no pun intended), for better or worse, is already in play. This is where you miss the boat: This isn’t about control – it’s been about the presumption of responsibility. A parent’s responsibility to raise their kids. A teenager’s growing responsibility to make their decisions being fully informed of the seriousness of that decision and potential consequences.

    My kids chose not to have sex (one is recently wed) thus far because they understand the decision is monumental, has the potential to devastate lives, to lead to an unwanted pregnancy, to complicate their lives tremendously, etc. They also believe that apart from the commitment of marriage, it’s a slippery slope they’d rather avoid.

  47. Eric: “As for the rest, we’re still talking about children here…”

    Actually, no, we’re not. Prepubescent children aren’t having sex and aren’t interested in sex. Many are curious, but the details are as appealing to them as the digestive processes of an anteater. Oh, I suppose you could find a story of under 10′s having sex, but in cases like these, as in cases of ordinary children, the availability of a condom is not a deciding factor.

    Dana Pico: Nangleator sums up the liberal response in just two sentences:

    You (the much better looking Dana) keep saying ‘parenting’ as if the parents are doing it. You act like this program is interfering in something that actually exists.

    Nangleator’s comment assumes that no one is doing any rearing of their own children, and then assumes further that, in such absence, the public schools ought to do it for us.

    I’m not calling condoms ‘parenting.’ There are two kinds of parents. Those that are willing to provide protection if they know they have to, and those unwilling to provide protection. (NO parent can stop a determined minor from engaging in sex, except by murdering them.)

    For the parents that provide their kid with protection, the school condom rule is immaterial. It doesn’t matter. For parents that refuse to protect their kids’ life, there’s an alternative open.

    See, good parents aren’t punished. Bad ones are punished by having their kids safer, despite their wishes.

  48. Oh, and I suppose I should brag about my stepdaughter making it all the way out of college without getting pregnant. I didn’t make the rules; her mother did. But I would have made the same ones.

  49. But that being said, at any time they could have quite easily gone for the throwaway fuck. But they chose not to

    …you think.

    You do not, however, know.

  50. The Childless in a time of Parents wrote:

    But that being said, at any time they could have quite easily gone for the throwaway fuck. But they chose not to (the prettier Dana)

    …you think.

    You do not, however, know.

    Actually, attentive parents really do know these things, really do see the clues and figure out what they mean. I suppose that, in a technical sense, we don’t know, with precision, exactly what has happened, but parents pretty much figure out what their kids are doing. The adjective “attentive” is the important qualifier; parents who don’t care, don’t know.

  51. Nangleator posted:

    assovertincups, you don’t get that this is the absence of a bedroom law, and not the continued imposition of an old one?

    baawhaaahaaaa …………..no nang, it is not value neutral. it is not the absence of moral code/law, it is merely the added imposition of a new one, by people who have no damn business imposing such moral codes or standards much less on the children of others.

    what liberals have ACCUSED conservatives of for years is exactly what liberals do, only with a different set of standards. and, naturally liberals feel free to change the rules and standards at any time for anyone.

    if you want to know exactly what a liberal is up to, just examine their accusations towards free people. they will expose their own hearts every time.

    again… i call bullcrap.

  52. The Childless in a time of Parents

    Heh. Yes, it’s at that point…

    A wise person would understand that perhaps other people are onto something they just don’t have the experience yet to fully grasp. And in realizing that, the wise person would quietly and respectfully give those other people the benefit of the doubt. And then shut his mouth because anything further said, just makes him appear more foolish.

  53. A wise person would understand that perhaps other people are onto something they just don’t have the experience yet to fully grasp

    Bwahahahahah.

    Coming from the wingnuts on this group, that’s a belly-laugh.

Comments are closed.