Girl Scouts being boycotted - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-10-2004, 06:17 PM   #46
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:17 AM
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 03-10-2004, 06:52 PM   #47
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


People have the right to set their own boundaries. Some of us may not agree, but it is their choice.
It isn't even about agreeing on this particular point. There is nothing pornographic about sex ed. Pornography is sex for entertainment's sake. I doubt this material was handed out to entertain. The comment from the woman which you originally quoted is stepping into another area all together, which is the distastefuleness of the material. It is one thing to say you dont agree with sex ed being taught by anyone other than yourself, but to falsely build it up to be something which it is not, nor even intends to be.
None of us can probably comment on this accurately as we dont know what information was originally given out to the parents or these kids, but common sense says it is unlikely to be anything so graphic in nature it would warrant disbanding a Scouts group as a result.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-10-2004, 07:02 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
There is nothing pornographic about sex ed.
Surely you are not suggesting that pornography labeled as "sex ed" becomes not pornography.

The term "pornographic" probably means "too graphic" for the tastes of the individuals involved.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-10-2004, 07:37 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:17 PM
Individuals have the right to set the boundaries for themselves




parents, have the right to set the boundaries for their OWN children


I would not want my 10 year old daughter seeing
Quote:
masturbation, as well as illustrations of couples having sex, people examining their naked bodies and a boy putting on a condom
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-10-2004, 08:08 PM   #50
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 08:17 PM
and that is your right as a parent deep...and I would also assume you would not be sending your daughter to a Planned Parenthood seminar without knowing what was being taught and what materials were being handed out and then complaing about the content afterward.
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 03-10-2004, 08:13 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:17 PM
BAW,

we agree



that is about what i said on page 3 (see below)


Quote:
Originally posted by deep



it looks like parents HAD to sign their kids up and WRITE a check.


the parents have a right not to want their children presented with this information. their complaint carries little credibility if they blindly sign up and write checks.

Nobodys Fool info here
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-10-2004, 08:14 PM   #52
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Surely you are not suggesting that pornography labeled as "sex ed" becomes not pornography.

The term "pornographic" probably means "too graphic" for the tastes of the individuals involved.
Absolutely not. (to the suggestion, I mean) I'm not sure how you got that impression.
Pornography is pornography regardless of what it is called. This does not cut both ways though. Sex Ed material doesn't automatically become porn simply because someone slaps on that title, while pornography can never be anything but that - IF this is what it actually is in this case. There is a huge difference between pornographic material and sex education material. I guess what I mean is a Ron Jeremy video will never be anything but porn, while a book called "Where Do Babies Come From" is educational and to call it porn is pretty much an inaccurate description. These implications from this original article change the issues somewhat, in my view. It takes it further than the basic argument that these parents are angry this was shown to their kids without consent and moves into an accusation that wholly inappropriate material was being shown regardless of how one views the notion of a non-parent doing the educating.

The second point you made, is one no one can argue or discuss. I see your point, and wouldn't ever imply someone has overreacted. Calling it something which it is not, nor ever intended to be is not right though. To them I think, well be offended (not that we choose what offends us) but don't be inaccurate. You know? It's like saying being offended is one thing, but to imply it is pornographic filth with no benefit at all is incorrect.

Deep, the point I was trying to make above was the same as in this reply. I personally agree every parent has the right to filter and monitor what their children see and learn, and to be offended by it is their right. I think though the quote from that particular mother and some other things in it, take it to a new level. One which can't be made lightly. If there is truth in the claims it was wholly unsuitable then it is a bigger problem than just 'I dont want you people teaching my kids about sex'.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-10-2004, 09:33 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
It would be interesting to see what information was provided to parents before they signed up and paid for the conference....
with any sex ed i had in school an outline of what was going to be taught was given to the parents before hand.

I think the parents probably were given the information because it's not the parents whose children who attended the event that are up in arms. It's parents of girl scouts that are upset because they found out that the girl scouts lended support (not financial) to the program, their kids were exposed to the pamphlets at all.

While it's their right to remove their kids from a group that supports things that are in their opinion immoral, it seems a little silly to me to do so since their kids aren't be exposed to it, and the girl scouts still provide their girls with wholesome fun. I think the irony of it all is that by making a big stink about it, they're going to have to explain why they're pulling them out of it, the explaination of which is going to have to envolve talking about sex.
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 03-10-2004, 11:39 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 11:17 PM
I remember sex ed at school. I went to a Catholic High School (yes, we had the infamous kilts) and it was 9th grade gym class and our (male) teacher brought in an IUD to show the girls.

It was scary looking. I thought it would scrape through my uterus. What the hell did I know?

Point of the story - our parents didn't get any sort of notice that we were even taking a class, much less of the content, nor the fact we had to have an exam on it. I didn't know that was common in schools.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 03-10-2004, 11:56 PM   #55
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 08:17 PM
We had sex ed in 6th grade...permission slips describing exactly what would be taught, boys and girls separate, etc. I do remember a few kids being sent to the library because their parents objected.

Even in high school health class, we had to have parental permission to take the unit involving sex and reproduction. My own teenagers have had pretty much the same experience.
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 03-11-2004, 12:35 AM   #56
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

Point of the story - our parents didn't get any sort of notice that we were even taking a class, much less of the content, nor the fact we had to have an exam on it. I didn't know that was common in schools.
Private schools can do whatever the parents will put up with.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-11-2004, 12:54 AM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 10:17 PM
I remember there being parental slips being signed at my school, too. We had sex ed starting back in 4th grade, if I recall rightly. I don't really recall there being a lot of parents who objected to their kids being a part of it (course, a lot of the kids may not have even taken the slips home to show their parents, too...). Basically, back then, it was just discussing what happens to make a baby and stuff and learning more about each gender's bodies and stuff. In older grades, we got more into the STDs and all that other stuff, and while abstinence was mentioned, we did also discuss protection and all that, too.

Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
While it's their right to remove their kids from a group that supports things that are in their opinion immoral, it seems a little silly to me to do so since their kids aren't be exposed to it, and the girl scouts still provide their girls with wholesome fun. I think the irony of it all is that by making a big stink about it, they're going to have to explain why they're pulling them out of it, the explaination of which is going to have to envolve talking about sex.
, particularly with the last sentence. Excellent point.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-11-2004, 12:29 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Private schools can do whatever the parents will put up with.
It's not a private school, martha. Catholic schools are publicly funded in the province of Ontario, this is a point of contention nowadays, certainly.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 03-11-2004, 01:35 PM   #59
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:17 PM
OH! I didn't realize that. Here in the States, Catholic schools are private. So far, anyway.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com