Girl Scouts being boycotted

[fah]

I believe that it is the parents responsiblity to teach their children about sex, however I do realize that many fail in this duty. I would be interested in seeing some statistics as to whether these planned parenthood and sex education classes actually are worthwhile in preventing unwanted pregnancies, diseases, etc.

As a parent, I agree, it is my responsibility to teach my children about sex but being a parent does not make me an expert. There are many books out there than can help but the best one I found is be Meg Hickling and it is called 'Speaking of Sex - What Your Children Need To Know And When They Need To Know It'. This book helped me answer the beginning questions from my children but also told me when to tell my children things.

In this book she speaks of many reasons to educate your children about sex. For me the most important reason is that knowledge is protection. Protection from sexual predators, diseases and unplanned pregnancies.

At the beginning of her book she mentions a study, published in Autumn 1998 by the United Nations, it reads "a study done around the world said sexual health education tends to encourage students to wait to have sex until they are older. The report also said that students who have had sexual health education have fewer partners, fewer unplanned pregnancies, and fewer sexually transmitted diseases than those who have not had this kind of education."

 

[U2luv]

As a parent, I agree, it is my responsibility to teach my children about sex but being a parent does not make me an expert. There are many books out there than can help."

I agree with that. I went out when my oldest daughter (now 14) was 9 and bought a book called "what's happening to my body". I took it home and just put it out on the coffee table in the living room without saying a word. Once it disappeared I took things from there. I am proud to say that my girls (I have 2) are both very open and willing to talk with me about literally anything. My oldest had health class in the 5th grade at school where they were taught all the stuff she already knew. She said to me "Mom, I think the 5th grade is way too old to learn this stuff." and I agree. She also saw all the kids in the class who knew absolutely nothing because their parents left it to the school to teach them. That is sad.

 

[martha]

And then there are the parents who not only don't tell their children, they won't let the school tell them either. There's a 14-year-old waiting to give birth!

 

[U2luv]

And then there are the parents who not only don't tell their children, they won't let the school tell them either. There's a 14-year-old waiting to give birth!

Very true. And that's too bad. I learned most of what I know about these matters on my own. My parents were like the ones we're discussing, not teaching it at home, at least in the way they should have, and in order to be allowed to go to the classes at school, I ended up faking my mothers signature

 

[fah]

I was very lucky when it came to sexual education. My mother was a nurse and told me everything. I remember telling some of my friends things and they just didn't believe me.

 

[beli]

Both of my parents were alcoholics and taught me diddly squat about most things. I learnt about the whole birds and the bees thing from school. My adolescent visage was also highly effective at keeping the boys away. Just as well really.

 

[deep]

Some 400 to 700 fifth- through ninth-graders attend the half-day Nobody's Fool conference in Waco each July. The program never mentions abortion, according to Planned Parenthood. The youngsters receive a book with chapters on homosexuality and masturbation, as well as illustrations of couples having sex, people examining their naked bodies and a boy putting on a condom.

I believe the parents should have been required to give written permission before this material was presented to young girls. Ten year olds? This is too much information in my opinion.

Some Girl Scout mothers called it soft-core porn. "It embarrassed me to look at it with my husband," said parent Shannon Donaldson.

People have the right to set their own boundaries. Some of us may not agree, but it is their choice.

 

[BAW]

Again, this was not a Girl Scout activity...it was a Planned Parenthood conference for 5th through 9th graders. I would be almost certain to bet that parent permission was required.

Yes, it might seem innapropriate for 10 years olds (boys AND girls) but not so much when you realize that there are 11 year old girls having babies.

 

[BVS]

Interesting enough this conference that is so immoral was supported by this Waco Baptist church;

http://www.lakeshorewaco.org/nofool.htm

Apparently they were not the only ones;

"Nobody's Fool" at Center of Girl Scout Controversey
Julie Shelton

Planned Parenthood Education Director Pat Stone said, " This has been a regretable situation because I think kids have been brought into an adult conversation."

The conversation Planned Parenthood Education Director Pat Stone is talking about is the controversey over
the Girl Scouts sponsorship of Planned Parenthood's program Nobody's Fool, an annual educational conference
aimed at equipping adolescents to deal with issues of sex and sexuality.

Stone said, "Information is key in kids being able to make more repsonsible choices, smarter decisions."

But the program draws fire from groups that think it fails to stress abstinence adequately, and from
abortion opponents who are at odds with Planned Parenthood.
That's what's at the root of the call for a boycott of Girl Scout cookie sales.
Girl Scout Executive Director Beth Vivio says 2 out of the 200 Waco-area troops have pulled out in the wake of
the call for the boycott.

Vivio said, "We try not to take a stand on these kind of issues, but we really want to make it available as a resource for our famiies."

Nobody's Fool is an annual half-day conference for boys and girls in grades 5 through 9.
It started in 1989 and attracts from between 4 and 7 hundred area children every year.
Family life educators serve as instructors and participants are grouped by age and gender.
It's designed to provide young people with information about the changes of puberty, dating, peer pressure, sexually transmitted diseases and aids and pregnancy prevention.
And it's designed to foster communication between children and parents about sex.
Abortion is not part of the curriculum.

Stone said, "I've heard comments from the kids that say the only time we heard about abortion was from protestors on the front porch."

Twelve area churches also support the program, including Waco's First Presbyterian.
Jimmie Johnson is the senior minister there.

Johnson said, "I support those in the community who are in favor of absitance based curriculm,but i also like the fact that not all children as they grow are gonna behave repsonsibly."

Supporters say that's why Nobody's Fool is needed, in order to educate before it's too late.

---------------------------------------------------

I think they should boycott these churches as well.

It's ashame because only the girls and the delicious Peanut Butter Patties were hurt.

 

[ThatGuy]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Johnson said, "I support those in the community who are in favor of absitance based curriculm,but i also like the fact that not all children as they grow are gonna behave repsonsibly."

Exactly. Anyone who thinks that just repeatedly telling kids NOT to do something will effectively keep them from doing it in the long run has never raised/met/seen/been vaguely aware of a child before.

 

[deep]

Again, this was not a Girl Scout activity...it was a Planned Parenthood conference for 5th through 9th graders. I would be almost certain to bet that parent permission was required.

Yes, it might seem innapropriate for 10 years olds (boys AND girls) but not so much when you realize that there are 11 year old girls having babies.

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

 

[nbcrusader]

It would be interesting to see what information was provided to parents before they signed up and paid for the conference....

 

[BAW]

I still don't see what the offended parents are accomplishing by disbanding the Girl Scout Troops. Who is really being punished?

 

[verte76]

It seems like it's the kids who are getting screwed, not the offending parties.

 

[BVS]

It seems like it's the kids who are getting screwed

Interesting wording...

 

[pax]

 

[Angela Harlem]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[deep]

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

masturbation, as well as illustrations of couples having sex, people examining their naked bodies and a boy putting on a condom

 

[BAW]

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.

 

[deep]

BAW,

we agree



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

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

 

[Angela Harlem]

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'.

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[BAW]

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.

 

[martha]

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.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

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.

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

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[martha]

OH! I didn't realize that. Here in the States, Catholic schools are private. So far, anyway.