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

Posted by: ST 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.

“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.

“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.

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.

But we’re just getting warmed up. Check out this story from Shenandoah, IA:

Parents are outraged after young teenagers were instructed on graphic sexual acts during a Planned Parenthood sex education class at the local high school in Shenandoah, Iowa.

“It was horribly inappropriate,” Colleen Dostal told Fox News Radio. “To do that in a mixed-gender classroom, — I truly believe it was inappropriate.”

Dostal’s 14-year-old son was one of a handful of eighth graders in the class. The students, she said, were given instruction on how to perform female exams and the instructor used a 3-D, anatomically correct male sex organ to explain how to use a condom.

But Dostal said she was most upset over the instructor simulating sexual acts using stuffed animals designed to resemble STD’s.

“I do not understand why any adult with a classroom of children would show them sexual positions,” she told Fox News Radio. “I think that’s horribly inappropriate.”

[...]

Superintendent Dick Profit told the World Herald he received an equal number of calls supporting and opposing the Planned Parenthood presentation.

“It’s a political hot potato; it’s a religious hot potato; it’s a parental hot potato,” he told the newspaper. “It’s all of these things that cause a crack in the system between society, parents and schools, and we’re still required to do it.”

Planned Parenthood’s Jennifer Horner defended the class and said some of the material had been turned around.

“We are not trying to keep any of this a secret,” Horner told the newspaper. “All information we use is medically accurate and science based.”

Profit said next year parents and guardians will receive advanced warning about the class.

Um, it’s mandated by state law that parents get notification when their children are going to be exposed (quite literally, in fact) to this type of controversial “sex education.” So how many educators at this school are going to be reprimanded for a violation of this law? My bet? Zero. It’s already being chalked up as an ‘oversight’ that won’t happen again. Uh huh. That’s what they always say.

I can’t tell you how many times in arguments I’ve had with liberals over sex ed in the public school classroom where they tell me that I “have nothing to worry about” because “parents are required to be notified.” Right. That’s never made me feel any better about the issue, and this article just goes to show that that doesn’t always happen. But on the flip side, let’s say parents are notified and sign off on their child getting the “comprehensive sex ed” lesson. What one parent thinks “comprehensive sex ed” ecompasses could be vastly different than another’s interpretation. It’s always important if a parent gets such a notification to ask a LOT of questions before making the decision on whether or not their child is exposed to the “lesson.”

And finally, a school trusting a child to be properly “educated” on the birds on the bees by the likes of Planned Parenthood is like a farmer trusting a fox to guard the henhouse. It’s just flat out stupid, considering how Planned Parenthood has a shady, disturbing history on the issue of sex ed for young people – including displaying cartoons on their websites that talk about how to “make condoms fun.” Now just who do cartoons appeal to the most? Hmm. Three guesses.

Let’s also not forget Planned Parenthood’s criminal history, like covering up the rape of an 11 year-old, as well as their numerous other wrongdoings, exposed brilliantly by the fearless Lila Rose.

Educators simply can’t rely on Planned Parenthood to give out sex education of any kind to any student.

And parents simply shouldn’t trust educators to teach their children about the birds and the bees. I know it’s a difficult subject to talk about with kids, but in the end, who would a parent rather talk to their kids about sex and sex-related issues? And if you’re a parent who is ok with the type of “education” Planned Parenthood and liberal school boards approve of for your kids, why? Young men and women in colleged today have distorted views about sex today thanks in no small part to the “free love” movement of the 60s, a movement that greatly aided in destroying the “old-fashioned” concept of responsible, committed relationships in favor of “if it feels good, do it.” This is, unfortunately, an attitude that prevails to this day.

As to how all of this affects kids long-term, I recently read an article about the damaging effect of kids being exposed to porn online, and this frightening stat jumped out:

Children are very vulnerable as compared to adults because of the presence of mirror neurons in the brain, Dr. Cooper said. Mirror neurons are part of the brain that convince us that when we see something we are actually experiencing it.

According to the American Psychological Association, over the past 12 years, girls have changed in their thinking. They are beginning to see themselves as having their only value in sexuality.

“When a child sees herself only as a sexual object, she is no longer able to demand the kind of respect she deserves,” Dr. Cooper said. “The new definition of ‘love’ these days is sending a sexually explicit picture.”

The bottom line is that sexualizing kids and “normalizing” sex at a young age has disastrous consequences down the line both for the kids and society on the whole. This is a warped “belief system” that has absolutely NO business being taken seriously anywhere, and has NO BUSINESS whatsoever being taught in any public school classroom.

It’s got to be a tough job being a parent these days with the myriad of new things that kids can be exposed to and the ways they can be exposed to them – ways that didn’t exist in the 1960s and 1970s. Not being a parent myself, I don’t want to come off as lecturing other parents so if it does sound like that, my apologies. I just believe parents these days have to be super-vigilant and super-aware when it comes to every aspect of their child’s education, because one never knows what may slip under the radar when no one is looking.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

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

Comments

  1. Anthony says:

    This is so appalling, I can only laugh in shock. I think we should make a point of following the next school board elections in that area to see how many of these clowns get reelected.

    Edit: I forgot to mention this. You want some truly disgusting “educational programs?” Start with this series on Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” at Big Government: http://is.gd/d26Vq This guy has no business being anywhere near a school.

  2. Great White Rat says:

    Just another example of how the left wants to abrogate all personal responsibility and pass it on to The All-Knowing, All-Powerful bureaucracy. The implicit assumption is that the State knows better than the pathetic peasants who might want to raise their own children with values and ideas that don’t conform to the wishes of Big Brother.

    Yeah, it’s a great idea to have the same kind of people who pay $900 for a hammer and have made the DMV such a model of efficiency raising your kids.

    The usual rationalization in these kinds of cases goes something like this: the kids will find out about it anyway, and do it anyway, so it’s best if we show them the right way. Next time you hear that, ask them to apply the same reasoning to smoking and watch their heads explode.

  3. Carlos says:

    Ummm, how soon do we start charging these clowns (PP, teachers, invited homosexual “experts”) with contributing to the delinquency? If even a “qualified” expert were to do any of this crap outside a classroom, he/she would be in jail so fast it would make one’s head spin! And the school boards and state officials (including legislators) who vote for this should be brought up on conspiracy charges, too.

    And don’t tell me this is “different” because it’s in a classroom. Been there, done that, grew up a long time ago but can still remember the giggles when we were in our mandatory sex “ed” classes.

    I just love it that, when a religious person mentions his/her faith in public there is an outcry that can’t be ignored as far away as Mars because it’s “shoving religion down our throats,” but in a captive-audience setting pushing secular humanity is OK because “it’s learning.”

  4. Wayne says:

    Abolish public education and make it all private. Problem solved.

  5. gus says:

    Liberals have no morals. Now they want to force the FREAKISH, GODLESS IMMORALITY onto our children. There is a war coming.

  6. gus says:

    This PETER GROSSO clown is a f@#$ing idiot.

    No Peter (no pun intended)you aren’t handing out condoms like they are m&m’s.
    You ARNE’T HANDING OUT M&M’s. You are handing out condoms. TO CHILDREN.

  7. Bryn says:

    You have to realize that Provincetown, which is at the tip of Cape Cod, has be taken over by the gays. Straight people who visit are subject to harrassment and hostility. The distribution of condoms to kids makes much more sense once you understand P-town demographics. Doesn’t make it any less immoral however.

  8. Great White Rat says:

    “It’s about availability; we’re not handing ‘em out like M&M’s,”

    That’s true. He’d probably get into trouble for handing out M&M’s. One of the nutrition fascists might decide they’re bad for the kids and ought to be banned, and next thing you know Grosso would be apologizing in front of the school board for being “insensitive” or some other such rot, and begging to keep his (grossly overpaid) job.

  9. Zippy says:

    Hmmm..asking a young child what his motives are if he were to ask for a condom. What if he were to answer appropriately? That’s just laughable at best. I’m sitting here with my jaw to the ground.

    Seems to me that a parent’s right to know is diminishing rapidly.

    In NJ we have to sign a permission slip allowing the middle school children to go to a sex education class.

  10. Son of Bob says:

    And, the liberal agenda of grooming children to have sex with them continues…

    As for the line, “But Singer insists that if an especially young child requests a condom, the nurse will ask the student’s motive and act accordingly.”, I remember when they raised the drinking age in my state from 18 to 21, and a congressman was asked how it was possible that it would be illegal to have a champagne toast at your own wedding if you were under the age of 21. The congressman replied that, “I’m sure no one would object to the couple having a toast in such a situation” – yet, try it today and not only will the couple be in hot water, but also the “over 21″ folks who purchased the alcohol. No one in that school will care if a young child asks for a condom…as a matter of fact, they’ll probably just get sexually aroused by it. Freaks.

  11. Dana says:

    Oh, it’s very simple: the schools know much better than parents how to rear our children.

    I’m surprised that you didn’t know that.

  12. Jay says:

    I’ve heard a lot of talk lately about what a scandal it is that teenagers are “sexting” each other, i.e. sending sexually explicit text messages by phone.

    Prediction: Within ten years, “sexting” will no longer be considered a scandal. It will be a constitutional right backed up by ACLU lawyers.

  13. Jay says:

    Didn’t we just hear that South Carolina Congressional candidate Al Green faces criminal charges and may be disqualified from the primary for showing sexually explicit pictures to a college girl? So showing sexually explicit pictures to college-age youths: Sexual harassment. Very bad. Illegal. Showing sexually explicit pictures to 10-year-old children: Educational. Very good. Funded by the government.

  14. Dana says:

    I guess that I’d be a bit more impressed by the schools’ abilities to rear our children for us if they ever managed to do a good job in their (purported) primary function of educating children.

    Maybe I’m being overly traditional here, but shouldn’t they be able to master their first job before they start taking on others?

  15. Carlos says:

    @Bryn: But they have no agenda, don’tcha know? They just want to be left alone just like everyone else. And the way to do that, obviously, is make everyone else just like them!

    That’d sure solve whatever fake overpopulation “problem” we have.

    And speaking of condoms, I hear their success rate is about 95%. That means that about 1 time out of every 20 the condom fails in one way or another.

    Gosh, that would certainly give me a great sense of security knowing that, with a condom, I’d only have a 1-in-20 chance of catching whatever nasty disease I was trying to avoid. Like chlamydia. Or warts. Or HIV.

  16. Kate says:

    So where does a parent go when there is condom failure???? Is the state going to protect my child from heartbreak, too???? Yes, they will quickly say, here in PA, that all pregnant women and their children are covered under Medicaid, but the damage is already done.

    Believe me I speak from experience here….

  17. All very true, sister, but it’s even worse than you say.

    The left wants children to have sex, because this fits in with the way they want the world to be. They want free and open sex no matter what the age and how dare anyone say otherwise.

    This is why they shout with glee whenever some preacher is caught in a tryst. To them self-denial, monogamy, etc is stupid and wrong.

  18. Jeanne says:

    So if a minor is exposed to sexual content by an adult, it’s sexual abuse of a minor…but if they go to school and get condoms and a teacher tells them about sex, it isn’t? This is insane. Fifth graders should not be exposed to this, period. If parents want to teach children about this, fine, but it belongs in the home, not in school.

  19. Dana says:

    Perhaps I shouldn’t use Sis’ site to flog my own blog, but when I wrote about this — see the trackback above — several of my liberal readers (I seem to get more than most conservative sites) are all there defending this bovine feces.