...and religious conservatives don't like it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/05/10/california-is-overhauling-sex-education-guidance-schools-religious-conservatives-dont-like-it/

From the article:

"California’s Board of Education is revamping the guidance it gives for teaching sex education from kindergarten through high school in public schools.
Even though the guidance is not mandatory, religious conservatives fought it all the way and said the subject should be taught at home.

Board members on Wednesday considered objections to explicit material that had been recommended for use and removed some of it. Concerns were expressed
that some of the material was too explicit or seemed to be endorsing specific sexual activity. Among the targets: a book titled “S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know
Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties."

In the end, the panel voted to approve a broad framework for comprehensive sex education that it says is age-appropriate and important for young people
to know to stay healthy.

The board spent hours considering a
draft framework for health education
that was completed in April. It covers six subject areas: nutrition and physical activity; growth, development and sexual health; injury prevention and
safety; alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; mental, emotional and social health; and personal and community health. It is divided into grade groupings and
provides advisory language for each content area.

For sex education, the topic that generated opposition, the framework offers numerous subjects for discussion at each grade grouping, including:

list of 4 items
• Grades kindergarten through three: gender identity
• Grades four through six: sexual feelings, including masturbation
• Grades seven through eight: consent and sexual abuse
• Grades nine through 12: contraception and healthy sexual relationships, including advice for LGBTQ students
list end"

And another snippet about the opposition:

"Parents can exempt their children from sex education lessons. Still, religious conservatives have been fighting the new sex education guidance, with several
hundred protesting Wednesday at the Board of Education meeting. The Associated Press quoted a mother of six named Patricia Reyes as saying: “It’s just
scary what they are going to be teaching. It’s pornography. If this continues, I’m not sending them to school.”"

And one more quote from the article:

"According to EdSource,
conservative religious groups have been mobilizing parents to remove recommendations that deal with the sexual health of LGBTQ students and material aimed
at young children.
Hundreds of people attended
a public hearing in March in Sacramento and many stood to express objections to the Instructional Quality Commission, which advises the state board and
approved the new draft framework.

One woman, who identified herself as a “Christian soldier,” said: “This is something that is destroying our children. It will destroy our future children.”

Another woman read a Bible verse and said the draft framework is “straight from the pits of hell . . . Almighty God is going to judge all of us, rightfully.""

I remember very well when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints financially supported an amendment against gay and lesbian rights in California back in 2008. It wouldn't surprise me if the LDS church took an active role against these sex education proposals, not only because of what it is trying to teach kids about LBGT rights but also what it is trying to teach kids and young adults about mastaurbation and healthy sexual activities.

Interesting.

I wonder if this will cause more religious types to home school or go to religious schools which ultimately makes the problem worse.

I think you are right that LDS might mobilize and rally against this.

in b 4 ~ this should work out well for california ~

Not sure why you think that.

Nothing ever does.

Open your eyes.

Regarding the first item on the list, Gender Identity. This whole topic is going to turn out very badly for California. It is going to drive people away.

Maybe I have no right to suggest this as a relatively new transplant to California, but I'm not sure driving people away would be such a bad thing for California.

Not to mention the fact that acceptance of non-straight people has historically been one of the factors making the state such an appealing place to live. Anyone who feels uncomfortable with that acceptance should feel free to stay in Arkansas.

Yup.

This is quite a lot to take even as an adult. If I was there I'd be mad too. Masturbation to 4th graders? seriously? And gender identity questions to kindergarten kids,... that's just child abuse. Young kids need to be modeled into their genders and shown how to play with appropriate toys, so that they can fit in with their peers. Otherwise they'll get confused and get bullied, bad.

I'm thinking they should wait to teach kids about kinky sex until they are at least 18 and then discuss it in college level undergraduate work. This is stuff that should be taught in gender studies BA degree, not in public ed.

Macaromney wrote in part:

"I'm thinking they should wait to teach kids about kinky sex until they are at least 18 and then discuss it in college level undergraduate work. This is
stuff that should be taught in gender studies BA degree, not in public ed."

I hate to break the news to you, but high school aged kids are most certainly experimenting with kinky sex. If you don't teach them how to avoid pregnancy and STDs, you're going to wind up with a lot of stupid parents who really know very little about the birds and the bees.

The guidelines do not mention "kinky" anything.

Is sex "kinky" in your mind simply because gay people engage in it?

>> "Young kids need to be modeled into their genders and shown how to play with appropriate toys, so that they can fit in with their peers. Otherwise they'll get confused and get bullied, bad."

Or how about......

Left handed young kids need to be modeled into their right handedness and be shown how to write with the appropriate hand, so that they can fit in with their peers. Otherwise they'll get confused and get bullied, bad.

You seem to be missing the main point...TEACH...teach and they will learn the easy and safe way. Don't teach and they'll the hard and unsafe way. Also, if they are taught about it, it would lead to better understanding and hence, less bullying.
Nice try though.

Isn't 6th grade age appropriate for sex ed?

Kindergarten seems way too early.

Too young. I think there is a twisted indoctrination agenda at hand here. We got sex education in 7th grade. Basically you can get a girl pregnant and you can catch STD’s. I think that’s about all that needs to be covered.

The thing is too many politicians now want the state to be the parent and there is an erosion of respect for parents. Some of them even go as far as saying your children are not yours.

Kindergarten kids don’t need gender identity training. They already know there are women and men. They don’t need to know about the sexual part yet.

Kids don’t need to learn about masturbation. I figured that out on my own.

When kids are old enough to start having sex and girls start getting their period is the time to tell them the facts of life. Schools have been doing that for a long time.

> Too young. I think there is a twisted
> indoctrination agenda at hand here. We got sex
> education in 7th grade. Basically you can get a
> girl pregnant and you can catch STD’s. I think
> that’s about all that needs to be covered.

I think that is a vast oversimplification. There are kids who are confused about their identities, kids who are being molested at home, kids who are being raped and don't know how to approach authority figures about it. . .


----------------
> The thing is too many politicians now want the
> state to be the parent and there is an erosion of
> respect for parents. Some of them even go as far
> as saying your children are not yours.

Can you indicate any evidence to support that?


----------------
> Kindergarten kids don’t need gender identity
> training. They already know there are women and
> men.

Really? Ask someone who is gay. A lot of those people know, or suspect, that they are not straight before seventh grade. What does it mean for one of them to learn that "there are women and men" when they personally don't into either such category?


------------------
> They don’t need to know about the sexual
> part yet.

The average onset of menstruation for girls in the United States is 11.5 years. By definition, then, a lot of them need to know about their sexual functions well before seventh grade.


---------------
> Kids don’t need to learn about masturbation. I
> figured that out on my own.

But surely they need to know that it is a natural function, one in which almost everyone engages, and not something about which they should feel guilty. How many Mormons suffered emotional abuse because masturbation was condemned by the church at a time when they had no other sources of information?


--------------------
> When kids are old enough to start having sex and
> girls start getting their period is the time to
> tell them the facts of life.

And yet you object to children learning those things in seventh grade, which is already much too late for anyone dealing with early puberty, incipient doubts about their gender identities, sexual abuse at home or elsewhere.

Do you perceive no value in helping children who face those challenges?

Thanks for your reply.

> Kids don’t need to learn about masturbation. I
> figured that out on my own.

Just ignorant. Keeping ignorance alive in sex is ill advised.

Yeah, I just don't know how a Mormon or an ex-Mormon could think that just "figuring it out on your own" is a satisfactory solution. We know how many people suffered years or decades of guilt because no one helped them understand that the church's teachings are wrong both scientifically and morally.

Likewise we know that there are many who kill themselves over being gay (Stuart Matis) or even masturbating. Lives are ruined over this stuff.

"Figure it out yourself" does not suffice.

The irony is religious people usually want the "figure it out" option and so other people control the conversation with their kids.

The biggest problem with this list is they don't start talking about abuse until 7th grade? Are you kidding me? That is straight up BS. That should be discussed in K and all the way through Senior. The younger they are the more they need someone they can talk to that is NOT in the family. Contraceptives not until NINTH GRADE? Good lord, that is just stupid. The current age for girls to start menstruating in the US is 12.5. Healthy relationships need to be talked about much earlier too. Abuse in teen relationships is a big problem that no one talks about.

Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The biggest problem with this list is they don't
> start talking about abuse until 7th grade? Are
> you kidding me? That is straight up BS. That
> should be discussed in K and all the way through
> Senior. The younger they are the more they need
> someone they can talk to that is NOT in the
> family. Contraceptives not until NINTH GRADE?
> Good lord, that is just stupid. The current age
> for girls to start menstruating in the US is 12.5.
> Healthy relationships need to be talked about
> much earlier too. Abuse in teen relationships is
> a big problem that no one talks about.....

Funny how they sexualize the children years before they bring up actual consent and how to identify abuse.

Also no discussion of diseases, some of which can kill you or put you on medication for life like HIV.

There is definitely an unsavory aspect to the whole thing, being dressed up in righteous clothing. It's all going to end up in tears.

Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The biggest problem with this list is they don't
> start talking about abuse until 7th grade? Are
> you kidding me? That is straight up BS. That
> should be discussed in K and all the way through
> Senior. The younger they are the more they need
> someone they can talk to that is NOT in the
> family. Contraceptives not until NINTH GRADE?
> Good lord, that is just stupid. The current age
> for girls to start menstruating in the US is 12.5.
> Healthy relationships need to be talked about
> much earlier too. Abuse in teen relationships is
> a big problem that no one talks about.

While I don't agree with some of the other criticisms of this proposal, I think yours is right on target. Thanks for making your points.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2019 09:38AM by blindguy.

Funny how STIs/STDs don't feature on the list supplied. The 60s generation and their free love are now in charge... Don't let inconvenient facts like disease transmission get in the way of promiscuity.

First, from the snippets I supplied:

"In the end, the panel voted to approve a broad framework for comprehensive sex education that it says is age-appropriate and important for young people
to know to stay healthy.

The board spent hours considering a
draft framework for health education
that was completed in April. It covers six subject areas: nutrition and physical activity; growth, development and sexual health; injury prevention and
safety; alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; mental, emotional and social health; and personal and community health. It is divided into grade groupings and
provides advisory language for each content area."

The sexual health in this description would include STDs and pregnancy prevention, and this is made clear if you read the entire article from the provided link.

I agree. California is the porn capitol of the nation. It is no wonder bareback sex in porn and life is increasing at alarming rates because of the new medication out there.

Just because there is a temporary solution does not mean you can have sex with multiple partners with no effect.

I've decided to post this as an all-round response instead of trying to respond to everyone separately.

To Lot's Wife regarding your response to Macaromney (or was it to me--my screenreader does not show who is responding to whom, and I usually have to guess): I believe (but don't know) that the "kinky sex" Macaromney was referring to was in the listed book the Board ultimately excluded, “S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties." Parents, especially religious ones and their bishops, ministers, priests, etc. often find it difficult to discuss sex so they use innuendos when dealing with the subject. The problem is, people who have never actually experienced sex, especially younger ones, have absolutely no idea what those innuendos mean. "Don't touch yourself," (referring to mastaurbation) isn't going to work if you have absolutely no idea what mastaurbation is. The same holds true if you are told "Don't touch your private parts," if you have absolutely no idea what "your private parts" are. You might visually point towards a person's lap while you're saying this, but that most certainly wouldn't help totally blind persons like me understand what you are trying to say. (By the way, I bet that most Mormon bishops, when they come across children who don't know what mastaurbation is during worthiness interviews, fall back on sexual innuendos to explain what they are trying to say.)

Also, I rather guess (but certainly don't know) that Macaromney and some of the others who have responded to this topic may be thinking of the prologue to Alders Huxley's science fiction masterpiece, "Brave New World," where young children and teenagers are encouraged to engage in emotionless sexual activity. While that is still very much with us as adults (think of the popularity of prostitutes and one night stands), if you read the curriculum's details, you will see that healthy relationships, both physical and emotional, are the goal.

To Rubycon, Nolongerangry and another poster (whose pseudonym escapes me now), while I am disheartened by your responses, I am not surprised. Conservative views about sexuality are still the majority view, especially among males, regardless of race or ethnicity. To illustrate this point, in a poll conducted earlier this year by NPR and the Marist organization, it was found that the vast majority of males polled, regardless of skin color, viewed it to be their inalienable right to grope females without first seeking permission. We really haven't come as far as we think we have.

Blindguy,

I was replying not to you but to macaRomney. He is conservative in these matters; his stated view is that "young kids need to be modeled into their genders and shown how to play with appropriate toys, so that they can fit in with their peers." He says that teaching various gender options (it isn't really optional to the people concerned) is "child abuse." You can't get much clearer in saying that all children should be trained to be either male or female and nothing else.

With that as context, "kinky sex"--which neither the WP article nor anyone else in this thread mentioned--almost inevitably refers to the teaching of gender identities and non-heterosexual sexuality. I was simply pointing that out. If you are a human but you are not what macaRomney (and others) think appropriate--straight male or straight female--your sex is "kinky." If he believes I am misconstruing his views, let him clarify them. Otherwise, I feel comfortable that this is just another ill-reasoned denigration of LGTBQ+ people.

As for having read Aldous Huxley, this is someone who has stated repeatedly that education is destructive and that Algebra II is a waste of of children's time. The likelihood that he was comparing the new California policy with Brave New World are not high.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The likelihood that he was
> comparing the new California policy with Brave New
> World are not high.

Like many things if children were educated you wouldn't have these scare tactics.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media-library/video/2015-08-001-what-should-i-do-when-i-see-pornography?lang=eng

Humans are sexual creatures. Educating them about sex is so much better than asking them if they masturbate in a bishop's office. But to each parent their own...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2019 12:37PM by Elder Berry.

There is only male and female! There is nothing else. Lot's Wife, when are you and the dangerous liberals going to understand this? It has been proven by science multiple times over the last 50 years. Jesus Christ people.

Two poles of sexuality, with nothing between them, or two basic standards, with a spectrum of behavior between them?

Rule 34

> There is only male and female! There is nothing
> else.

Is your ignorance intentional or were you born that way? Look up intersex people and tell us whether a child born with both a penis and a vagina is male or female. Or are the Ob/Gyns lying when they report that phenomenon? Are they fabricating the photos?

What about kids who regardless of physical characteristics, identify with the other sex? Are they lying? Why is your opinion about them more accurate than theirs?


------------------
> Lot's Wife, when are you and the dangerous
> liberals going to understand this?

Surely not before you learn that your binary view of the world is killing people--again a subject you could discover if you simply did a Google search of research.


----------------------
> It has been
> proven by science multiple times over the last 50
> years.

Show us one credible study from the last 50 years that "proves" your point. A SINGLE REPUTABLE STUDY.


----------------------
> Jesus Christ people.

Jesus's feelings on the point are irrelevant. But no more than yours. How others live is their business, not yours.


----------------------
Ultimately that is the question that matters. Why does it possibly matter how others choose to live? How does that harm you?

What justifies your desire to intervene in the private life of others?

I will get back to you with the data.

I won't hold my breath. People who hold views like yours can only do so by ensuring they don't learn anything, an attitude that generally accords with their natural indolence.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People who hold views
> like yours can only do so by ensuring they don't
> learn anything, an attitude that generally accords
> with their natural indolence.

Yet get activated by threats to their traditionalist views.

It makes perfect sense that the way I was brought up, resulting in the way I think and behave MUST be the way things are meant to be! C’mon people!!

""California’s Board of Education is revamping the guidance it gives for teaching sex education from kindergarten through high school in public schools."

You don't teach, nor need to teach, 5yr olds about sex ed....

That would bother me as a non religious parent.

This isn't education it's grooming at state level.

Help me out here.

How exactly is teaching children what molestation is and how to report it to the authorities "grooming" those children for abuse?

Yup. Agree and there are many ways to teach good touch/bad touch even to a very young child. This is the only thing I think should be taught to K-3rd.

Exactly.

Knowing about sex is all about knowing the truth.


Judaism somehow became very prudish and decided that improper sex would keep a person out of heaven, not to mention pissing ghawd off!


Who wrote the Kama Sutra? I bet Kama Sutrans were more fun at a party, compared to Elohim/Jehovahists.


I'm looking forward to the day when sex is viewed on the same level as shaking hands. People are all the time comin' up with a new way to shake/greet their friends. Why shouldn't mild copulation be included?

Sex is all about control. When people are able to accept that their 18-year-old sons or daughters can 'shake hands' with whomever the kids chose, we probably won't need sex education.

Can you imagine a society where there is no such thing as a dirty joke? Yeah, I can't either, but I want to believe it can exist.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sex is all about control.

Relax. Don't do it.

"religious conservatives fought it all the way and said the subject should be taught at home"

This reminds me of my cousin who got in trouble for having sex with his teacher. He was home schooled.

You've really got to wonder what kind of twisted minds run Californian education. Deliberately sexualizing small children this young and getting them to experiment is wrong.

As other people have pointed out, the kids get several years of experimentation, role play and self-doubt implanted into their minds before the teachers get onto the question of abuse by adults. Maybe they think they'll be so open to sexual activity by that age that they will be jello in their hands.

You don't think very highly of children do you? Did you ever believe that they were accountable at 8?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't think very highly of children do you?

That's a loaded question. Do you think small children should be taught to experiment sexually by creepy adults before they take any interest in the subject? Or that sexualization should be encouraged years before they are taught about abuse by adults?

> Did you ever believe that they were accountable at
> 8?

Not really.

You didn't read the link.

Of course not. People like that don't read, and they don't empathize. They want to remake the world in their own image, a remarkably totalitarian attitude that terrifies many of us.

It does because I don't understand it. There is no argument for ignorance here that seems good. Status quo is all I can figure they are fighting for. Do they have children? Did they want to remain silent on sex when they talked with their children?

The bigger issue is why do these people even care? They say they have defected from a totalitarian religion and hence should reject blanket generalizations let alone the notion of powerful entities enforcing those generalizations.

Yet here they are behaving just like Mormons with the exception that they replace the prophets with themselves, who are the new authorities whose views should be universal law.

Get over it, nolonger and halloweener. You have no right to tell others how to live.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2019 12:17PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Get over it, nolonger and halloweener. You have
> no right to tell others how to live.

Like the rest of your message(s), your comments have little relevance to what we said.

We aren't telling people how to live. We are complaining about a system which is doing just that. Get it right.

Educating people isn't telling them how to live.

Telling kids about STDs, as CA does, is hardly telling them how to live. It is telling them how to avoid dying.

It's unfortunate that you can't tell the difference.

Teaching kids, or anybody else for that matter, about sex does not equal sexualization, nor does it encourage experimentation.

What sort of warped mind thinks that it does?

Richard the Bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What sort of warped mind thinks that it does?

People afraid of sex?

Seriously, Dr. Laura Schlesinger could teach them and these people would have problems.

Richard the Bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Teaching kids, or anybody else for that matter,
> about sex does not equal sexualization, nor does
> it encourage experimentation.

No one said it did. But there is responsible sex ed, and irresponsible sex ed. This is irresponsible. It starts way too young, encourages experimentation, body image problems and then only brings in the abuse of children at a much later date.

> What sort of warped mind thinks that it does?

Aren't yoy the man who cracked a joke about incest and child abuse in home schooling above?

No sense of humor and a judge of sex education being abuse. I was sexually abused as a kid. It is you who is more the problem then the solution.

> This is
> irresponsible. It starts way too young, encourages
> experimentation, body image problems and then only
> brings in the abuse of children at a much later
> date.

Either you didn't read the guidelines or you didn't understand them.

What is irresponsible is letting kids who are being molested think they are alone and cannot get help, and preaching ignorance to adolescents who are exposed to STIs.

Richard the Bad wrote: "Teaching kids, or anybody else for that matter about sex does not equal sexualization, nor does it encourage experimentation."

To which Hallowiener replied: "No one said it did."

To which Lot's Wife responds: "Actually, YOU did. Twice."

Instance the first: Hallowiener criticizes "Californian education," noting that "deliberately sexualizing small children this young and getting them to experiment is wrong."

Instance the second: Hallowiener writes: "irresponsible sex ed. . . .encourages experimentation. . ."

I'm not sure how we are supposed to take you seriously when you can't even remember what you just wrote.

<<But there is responsible sex ed, and irresponsible sex ed. This is irresponsible.>>

Have you seen the lesson plans? I don't think so. But if you have, please give real life examples of this irresponsibility.

Sorry, I have to be anonymous for this post.

In the early 1970's my mom FOUGHT the first major sex education guidance in the San Jose Unified School District. For 4 years she was not a mom, but a crusader for her cause. I ended up fixing all the meals for my 5 younger siblings. (Yes, I can cook).

She enlisted several TBM's including the Stake President. They went to and fro to all the board meetings to KILL the curriculum.

That is where she learned to HATE the GAY agenda.

When I came out as a gay man to my parents 20 years later, my mom HATED gays with a vengeance and DISOWEND me. Since then I am a POS to my mother.

THE POINT HERE IS: She and the rest ARGUED that sex education was to be taught in the home. SHE NEVER said anything to me. NEVER, nor to my siblings.

The conservative argument to "teach it in the home" rings hollow to me!