Slashdot Mirror
Wisconsin DA Threatens Arrests Over Sex Ed
WrongSizeGlass writes "USA Today is reporting that the DA of Juneau County, Wisconsin, is warning teachers that they could face arrest over the new sex-ed curriculum. District Attorney Scott Southworth said a new state law that requires students learn to use condoms and other contraceptives 'promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.' Southworth also said, 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers. I've got enough work to do.'"
DA: Hey Legislative Branch, your new law on sex-ed requires teachers to break your old law on sexual misconduct. Please fix. I'd rather not have to charge all the teachers in the state.
Legislator: Duh, say what? I don't write no contradictory laws.
DA: See you in court!
The hypocrisy in US in unbelievable. Violence and killing people is all okay in TV, but when it's teaching persons about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden.
Even while I live in Europe and sexuality is quite okayish here, my parents never taught anything about it. I learned it from school and from friends. And let me say this, what they taught in school was probably a lot more responsible than what my friends told me.
Sometimes I get the feeling that all of the hate about sexuality is from older people who don't know how to get, don't have the mindset to get it or are angry at other people who have fun doing it. After all, when you're adult it's one of the most fun things to do.
Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible? Or would you rather that they have the knowledge of how to use contraceptives to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STDs? We teach kids how to do everything else safely, but we think, "Well, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway, so if we don't tell them about it, they won't do it." Hogwash.
Excuse me, but what does this story have to do with my rights online at all? Or how is this a story worth of "news for nerds"?
There is no tech relevance. It's really a local educational issue that stuff like this happens in every district.
Slashdot editors really need to start picking up the slack. It's getting pretty thin pickings here nowadays.
It may surprise you, but most of us geeks also have sex. And considering the next generation of geeks, its probably better they are taught the safety things at schools.
Just because you share your name with an Alaska city doesn't mean you have to be as dumb as Sarah Palin.
Southworth also said 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do.'"
Apparently not. Like the recent nullification suits brought to defeat health care reform, not even the originators believe there is any merit to these actions. This is all about grandstanding to promote a particular ideology at tax payer expense. It's just a shame this guy is terrorizing teachers in the process.
I've always seen the comma there: "Your rights, online". Makes a big difference. But yeah, this is more idle-worth than anything else.
No, I actually think its a good thing. It seems like US really needs this, and I would had been proud of my parents if they would had fight for a more open and sexually aware world for me. The truth is, everyone is going to have sex and 99% of people are going to do it during teenage. There will be problems if they don't know how to do it safely. It's fucking hilarious/sad that a teacher that teaches safety practices is threaten by an arrest to do so.
Gee, is this the same Scott Harold Southworth who was named a "CNN Hero" when he adopted a crippled Iraqi boy when he was deployed with the WI National Guard? Even though he's not married?
from: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/15/sm.02.html
And so now he thinks sex education is child abuse?
-=Maggie Leber=-
I'd love to hear a good argument for the benefit gained by kids engaging in sex not knowing how to use condoms.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
I mean, if you got issue with the law, then take it to the law makers. Don't take it out on the freaking teachers.
promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.
That pegged my bullshit detector. In fact I think it broke the peg clean off.
using the school system to shove his religious views down everyones throats.
He thinks learning about condoms cause people to rape more.
Fucking idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you RTA, you will see it IS voluntary. Schools need not do it, and you can have your kid not attend it if they do.
It is. RTFA.
I was going to moderate this thread, but I had to point out that the law is not mandatory at either the school or student level. Schools can choose not to teach sexual education. Parents can opt their children out of it as well. That's why this prosecutor is being so fricking ridiculous. If the legislature, school, and parents decide that this education will help their children, who is this prosecutor to say otherwise? I hope someone sues.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Hey says it "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children."
Okay okay I can barely understand the first part. By teaching kids about sex and contraception, you are in a way acknowledging that they are or will be sexual beings, and I guess going from stubbornly and blindly refusing to acknowledge kids' sexuality to acknowledging the possibility could be called "promoting"... In a society as hung up about sex as ours, I can see how that reasoning comes about.
But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work? Is there a section in the class about how to be a rape victim? A video about how cool PTSD and group counseling are? Or is it that would-be predators will see the worldly look in the newly-educated kid's eyes and think "Ah, that one's fair game, he's practically asking for it!"
Fuck, nevermind. I don't even want to know what went on inside their head in the course of making the connection between sex ed and sexual assault.
Oh wait, I forgot, what went on was nothing. "Think of the children" means "For heaven's sake, don't think!"
The enemies of Democracy are
It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home.
Public health and public safety have nothing to do with your personal belief. Which is why you will be vaccinated regardless. Newborns will be screened for metabolic disease regardless. You will be ticketed for speeding regardless. And your kids will receive certain information at school regardless.
Because while YOU may be a responsible parent, there is a significant number of IRRESPONSIBLE parents. The idea is that the government must ensure that this information is made available to everyone because kids contracting HIV, Hepatitis B/C or gonorrhea, for example, are a PUBLIC HEALTH risk.
Especially in a public health care setting, where it is the taxpayer who is/will be footing the bill for treatment.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
At last, 10 years of Paedophile and Child Pornography hysteria are beginning to pay off dividends. It begins with Sex Education classes, which by now are probably liability time bombs for all adults involved. It won't end there though. This has been the Endgame all along; a return to the social mores of the 1950s or earlier.
Child porn hysteria is toppling the fucking Catholic Church! What hope does your feeble "Free Society" have?
May the Maths Be with you!
"The new law continues to let parents remove their children from sex-ed classes, and schools can also not offer such instruction."
The atheists and devil-worshippers are trying to convince us that giving kids knowledge about sex will prevent things like STDs, AIDS, and pregnancies, but that is simply not true.
The Bible, the most authoritative source on the subject, clearly points out that knowledge is the root of all evil. For example, in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. A True Believer of the Lord can only interpret that in one way: Knowledge is Evil, and it is our duty to make sure our children are as poorly educated as possible.
Not just in regards to sex, but in other subjects, too. I have never allowed either of my children to attend school, and I forbid them to read anything except the Bible. I taught them enough english to understand it, and very little else. We do not have a television in our house, nor do we have a computer. For those wondering, I am typing this up at an internet cafe. I do this for their safety, as it is my duty to protect them from the dangers of the world. I despise my parents for making me go to college, and as a parent, I feel it is my responsibility to do things the Right Way. The Only Way.
The Way God Wants Me To Do Things.
Teaching kids safe sex is crucial but all this person sees is "sexualization"? It doesn't make me question sex-ed, it makes me question what's in the mind of this D.A.
If you haven't talked to your kids by the time the school has them in this program, you're too late.
That said, I would be very surprised if you couldn't get religious exception. Sad, but true. I mean if the only way you can force your religion on your children is through ignorance, then maybe you should sit down and have a hard long think about your views?
And teaching someone to use a condom isn't a sin.
Your dad covered condom use? diaphragm use? the effectiveness of other birth control method? the risk of the rhythm method? the risk of AIDS? how the uterus works? the treatment for VD? Risks of oral sex? Blood pressure? all in 10 minutes.
I don't think so.
Your child might have sex before marriage. If they make the decision, wouldn't you rather they where knowledgeable about the subject? Isn't it better the a boy understands how a womens body works? Personal, I prefer knowledge of a mysterious black box.*
"I doubt there would be so much fuss over this."
Not me, sorry I've seen the wackos complain about volunteer programs to.
Bottom line:
I would wager 100 dollars that you can get a religious exemption, and that this guy just doesn't wants to shove his mid begotten beliefs down everyones throat.
No pun intended...but man, it would have been a good one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
To not show how to have safe sex is pretty much to rely on either teaching the kids nothing and let them learn the hard way, or teach abstinence in the schools. Problem is, abstinence doesn't work. This has been shown many times.
And to not show any safe sex information is worse, as shown in in China where they don't teach much about safe sex and this leads to many unwanted pregnancies. Teens are bombarded with images and messages of sex every day, even in places like the supermarket where the latest issues of magazines like Cosmo, scream sex on their covers for all to see. Then you have ads from companies like American Apparel. These images just play on teenage hormones so teens need to learn this since it's thrown at them so much and so often. And we can already see what happens if we don't.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Condoms/contraceptives are to sex as seat belts are to driving: useful tools that can prevent unplanned, life-altering events.
Some people might argue that teaching teens how to use seatbelts somehow makes them more likely to drive recklessly. Or that teaching about seat belts will increase their feelings of invincibility and trivialize the risks related to driving. I would say that teens that are aware of the reason for seatbelts will be more sober about the realities behind them. Those responsible enough to buckle up are those more likely to drive safely instead of recklessly.
DA Southworth wants to criminilize knowledge of sexual protection for teens at the same age we allow them to begin driving. We can't pretend that ignoring the teen desire to drive cars is going to reduce it. Teens naturally want freedom, want to drive, and they will even if we ignore proper training. If anything, it should be criminal NOT to teach teens critical skills that can prevent derailing lives- and these skills include driver safety and safe sex both.
I remember getting excused from sexual education in high school. It was abstinence education, with no practical skills taught. Basically they showed us a bunch of nasty pictures and told us to not fuck, suck, or kiss. I spent hours surfing the web while my taxes went towards hours of wasted time. It was funny how confused they were about my "religion" that forbids me from learning sexual education that is solely abstinence. Luckily, I basically told them to fuck off and quit prying and they did.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
Isn't it impossible to have contradictory laws - at least within a single legal system? The way it works in the UK at least is that any new law automatically supercedes older ones. So if there is a contradiction you follow the most recent law because it is deemed that MPs have changed their minds about the previous law. Does this DA really believe that any judge would find a teacher guilty if he took it to court? It strikes me as if he is trying to change the law rather than enforce it which is not part of his job description.
Your children are having a lot more sex than you think. The only way you can discourage them is to teach them programming.
"I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do."
Bullshit. That's exactly what he just threatened to do by sending those letters.
Teachers are in a very tough position, especially now that they are being threatened with arrest if they do what the law requires of them. This guy has a political agenda that is in opposition to the law. He is intimidating teachers into violating the law because of it. He is corrupt and doesn't deserve to be a district attorney.
Some quotes from his letter (via TFA)
"If a teacher instructs any student aged 16 or younger how to utilize contraceptives under circumstances where the teacher knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child -- or even where the 'natural and probable consequences' of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child -- that teacher can be charged under this statute" of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. ...
"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."
Note the second quote where he is clearly proselytizing against the law. This is completely inappropriate for a district attorney.
that she is a 'Nerd In training'.
I have never been happier.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender"
Because of course while engaging in any sort of sexual behavior, you must surely be either a victim or an offender.
Of course it is much better to promote "just say no" and pretend that normal human sexual desire does not exist, and certainly not in any one not of legal age.
I think that the real source of the problem here is someone who likely has a completely screwed up attitude towards any sort of sexual behavior.
And for any comments about "statutory rape", I don't think that applies (at least it shouldn't) in the case of two minors.
Especially in a public health care setting, where it is the taxpayer who is/will be footing the bill for treatment.
You were doing so well until you got to this sentence. Let's not pull this into the discussion and bring the loonies out (or give them an excuse to shout that public health care is forcing their children to watch porn in class).
How about instead you conclude with this:
Public health also means protecting the health of those children whose parents are too stupid, crazy, or superstitious to take steps to educate their kids on disease prevention. HIV, Syphilis, and Hepatitis can be fatal, but are all easily preventable and no person should get infected with them due to lack of knowledge.
Remember: These are the best legislators we could get. Just imagine the ones that didn't make the cut.
I can pretty easily imagine that some of those who didn't make the primary or general electoral cut might well have been better than most of those we get.
These are probably the best we can get... not because there aren't better ones out there, but because of the way we talk and think about "hiring."
Tweet, tweet.
Sexual assault doesn't have to be done by adults. Just recently in Arizona there was a Liberian girl raped by a group of young boys. IIRC the oldest boy was ~15. These kids won't choose to be victims, they may not even know if they do become victims.
Those weren't victims, those were rapists, and yes they sure as fuck knew what they were doing when they held the crying girl down and forced themselves on her.
These children are taught not to engage is sexual activity, but then they are told that sex is safe with a condom. So now little Jimmy may be convinced by his teacher/priest/coach that what they are doing is ok because he/she is going to use a condom.
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
You're seriously suggesting that we will teach kids about reproduction, the sex act, contraceptives, STDs... but that they will have literally no idea what rape is?!
What kind of fucking retarded curriculum are you talking about that's going to make a kid think that sex they don't want is "okay" if contraceptives are involved? How does that work? Is what you wrote literally what you think the extent of sex education is?
"Sex is safe and always okay if you use a condom"? That's idiotic. Sex ed is not like that.
I don't know about you, but for one I was taught about "bad touches" long before I was given sex education (which was pretty early) and for two, in my sex-ed class I was told that condoms made you safer from STDs and pregnancy, not sexual assault!
You seriously think a kid who knows nothing about sex, STDs, or contraceptives is going to be less likely to be taken advantage of than one who does? Get a clue!
Or, young children will think it's ok to diddle around with each other because they found contraceptives, and we end up with another girl or boy raped, by children.
Again, how do we get from "practice safe sex, use a condom" to "Forcing people to do things they don't want to do is okay, if condoms are involved!"
leave it to parents to talk about contraceptives and abstinence. Which ever the child's parents prefer.
Yeah and many parents will "prefer" to teach nothing at all. And only the child of such parents could possibly be so naive and ignorant as to have any of the scenarios you suggest actually come to pass. Only the child of such parents could possibly have such a misbegotten notion of what formal sex education actually is to have these "concerns".
The enemies of Democracy are
Buy your kid World of Warcraft, get them playing it and they will be virgins for the foreseeable future. And they will have plenty of company to act as a support group, millions of other virgins.
Take the Red Pill.
It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home.
Public health and public safety have nothing to do with your personal belief. Which is why you will be vaccinated regardless. Newborns will be screened for metabolic disease regardless. You will be ticketed for speeding regardless. And your kids will receive certain information at school regardless.
Because while YOU may be a responsible parent, there is a significant number of IRRESPONSIBLE parents. The idea is that the government must ensure that this information is made available to everyone because kids contracting HIV, Hepatitis B/C or gonorrhea, for example, are a PUBLIC HEALTH risk.
Especially in a public health care setting, where it is the taxpayer who is/will be footing the bill for treatment.
vaccination HIV, Hepatitis, or gonorrhea contraction. the latter represents risks inherent in voluntary behavior, while the former is prevents the risk of contraction through casual contact. Since we're talking voluntary behavior, personal belief systems which address voluntary behavior are relevant.
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
First off, sorry for the long post
Second off, Seriously WTH??
I'm a teacher at a danish public school and what the DA is suggesting here is almost criminallly negligent in Denmark.
The pupils here HAVE to learn how to use contraceptives, it's the law. IMHO anything else is shooting yourself in the foot.
Not teaching them these things will not prevent the kids from having sex. I've never quite understood the whole American "If we don't talk/think about it then it doesn't exist!" attitude. To be fair though, it's not just the americans. Earlier this week I watched a documentary about British teenagers and their knowledge about sex and it was horrifying. Chicken skin as condoms, rinse out with cola, eat indian food the day after you've had sex. These were somewhat widely spread beliefs among teenagers on how not to get pregnant.(it's 4 in the morning atm and I can't remember what the documentary was called, but I'll find the link to the statistics later after I've slept)
Anyway, enough of my ramblings.
I'm glad to hear that Mrs. Helen don't see things the way the DA does. I can not for the life of me see how not teaching about contraceptives would be the better choice. Hindering the spread of STD's and minimising unwanted teen pregnancies would only seem like a good thing, no?
let's just for arguments sake do a little thought experiment.
Based on the belief(my belief at least) that teens will have sex no matter what we tell them i see a few different scenarios.
1: Teens have sex -> Teens don't use protection -> By sheer dumb luck nothing happens.
2: Teens have sex -> Teens don't use protection -> STD gets transmitted -> Numerous doctors appointments and various medication that in the best case kills the STD and in the worst case the girl will not be able to bear children later in her life.(drastic contrast I know, but entirely possible and it serves the example well)
3: Teens have sex -> Teens do use protection -> If used incorrectly there's a high probability that we'll end up as in example 2
4: Teens have sex -> Teens do use protection -> If used correctly the risk of STD's or unwanted pregnancy is reduced to a virtuel minimumm.
Feel free to correct these if you feel I've messed up, I AM going on my 28th hour awake.
So even the knowledge of contraceptives can be hurtful if it is not well founded.
Granted my students look at me like I've lost my mind when I bring bananas and condoms to class, and granted they're quite shy and embarresed at first, usually we'll just end up having a laugh about it though.
I even know a colleague of mine encouraged her pupils to learn how to put on the comdoms using only their mouths, both the girls AND the boys(Who knows, some of them may be gay and this might come in handy?) This is far from standard curriculum though and not something any school here would reccomend. But as teachers we do have a lot of leeway to use the techniques we see fit.
oh and as a last little side note here. We DO teach our pupils about alcohol, both in general and from personal experience uusually. They're gonna try it at parties anyway, so might as well prepare them as best we can. I'm not saying we bring alcohol to school, that's highly illegal, but we do talk about it in almost every aspect. The taste, smell, looks, effect(good and bad) etc. as do we when it comes to sex. The teachers have to make up with themselves if they want to include personal experience or not, but talking about how sex feels(both physically and psychologically) and what the goods and bads are about it, tends to have a lot more succes than just dry boring anatomy facts and standard info on STD's. Of course the anatomy, biology and the STD info is required teachings, but just listing facts is a dead sure way of not getting your pupils attention.
Disclaimer: I am a Christian. //sick of my fellow Christians refusing to talk about sex at home ///really sick of my fellow Christians expecting others to teach their children everything, then getting angry when the child may learn an opposing viewpoint. ////thinks parents should teach their children what they (parents) believe & why, then be open to discussing opposing views. Let the child decide. Encouragement to one side is ok. Forced faith is not faith, just a form of control. /////needs to get off of his slashy soapbox...
If you don't like what the teachers at school are telling your children, then it is YOUR responsibility as a parent to discuss what you think is wrong & why. I am all for sex ed in schools, including the proper use of contraceptives. I also think that such discussions should have already started at home prior to this. IF parents don't want to discuss this at home, they have NO right to bitch about what is taught in schools.
This is the first verified example of someone traveling through a time warp Space-Time Warp Verified In Wisconsin
Scott Southworth is living proof that mini-wormholes exists, that they permit time travel, and that, as scientists suspected, you cannot bring information forward in time.
I would love to watch this fool try to prove that sex education promotes sexualization of a child much less sexual attacks or whatever.
You might love to see him "prove" that until you remember that in his line of work, "prove" doesn't mean "demonstrate conclusively by scientific evidence," it means "convince 12 citizens of Juneau County Wisconsin."
Religion/superstition is obvious utter nonsense and need not be treated with respect. The people who believe in superstition are not worthy of the respect of modern humans. Their drivel should not even be in the marketplace of ideas, deserves nothing but scorn and attack, and is a drag on human progress.
I don't treat people who believe in imaginary friends as if their friends are real or their ideas sane. The only people who want religion respected are superstitionists themselves.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."