If these people were hanging around a playground suggesting this stuff to kids, instead of in a classroom, they would have been stoned to death by the parents by now.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/bush_administration

hardy-har. Escalation!

"grape jelly"?

Dang! Who knew that grape jelly makes you a responsible teen? Not me, that's for sure.

If adults told anyone that they were going to a seminar with subject matter described in the post, they would deservedly garner some very odd looks, or at least some knowing winks and nudges. And this is taught to children?

The open sexuality crowd owns sex education in our schools.

Grape jelly? Isn't that kind of sticky...? I mean, I haven't had a PB&J in a while so maybe I've just forgotten. Umm...

It sucks to have been born in '60. Too young for the free sex craze, aids comes along and shortens the party. Now I missed being taught at a tender, fragile young age how to improve the delinquent quotient that was seething through my veins.

2-3 years ago when my son was a pre-teen, I bought him one one of those puberty books for kids, but I read it myself first.

I mean, I've given birth, but jeez, there was stuff in that book that was new to me, and way inappropriate for a little guy whose voice has just started changing.

I gave him the book, but only after ripping out the pages with "the good stuff", which I will hand over to him when he's 25 or so.

It's more our culture than our educational system that's driving kids to explore their sexuality at earlier and earlier ages. I'm a freshman in college, and I was stuck in private Hebrew school until the 10th grade. The kids around me back then were some of the most hypersexual and perverted I've ever met, having never taken a sex-ed course in their entire lives. Conversely, when I moved into public school for the 11th grade, the sexual tension on school grounds was decidedly low-key and much less obvious. Maybe my experience was unique, and I agree that the curriculum mentioned in this article was absolutely over-the-top and uncalled for, but sex-ed in and of itself is not the culprit for the youth trends of today, IMO.

Stace:

I trust you realize that he's going to hear some version of "the good stuff" in the locker room of his middle school.

I'm just performing a periodic AOHSQ Reality Audit.

This is why my five year old is home-schooled, reading music, reading in general, and already a math wiz.

And she knows nothing about this crap. Tak your kids out of the system, and quit waiting for the eunuchs to grow a new set. It will not happen.

-T

Who knew that grape jelly makes you a responsible teen?

Its a spermicide, tastes great, is a desert topping and floor wax, quiet squeeky hinges, and if you buy it by the 5gal bucket you can use it rather than water to make blue concrete.

Seriously, is there anything grape jelly can't do?

This is why my five year old is home-schooled, reading music, reading in general, and already a math wiz.

Here in Colorado we have a wonderful charter school system that allows parents to put together the educational programs they want to see. Lots of back-to-the-basics type programs have emerged as a result, so careful selection can (hopefully) allow your children to enjoy a more traditional education.

You mean to tell me that abstinence can prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Who woulda thunk it?

I'm all for sex education in schools, not everyone is a good parent and the stakes are too damn high. But the point should be to avoid getting kids pregnant and/or infected.

"Just say no" is a retarded way to go about it, how about some defense in depth? Explain the negative consequences of pregnancy and STD's, explain that if you don't have sex then the above won't happen, then explain that if they insist on having sex there are methods that will reduce the probablilty of those consequences. It's called defense in depth.

But this stuff is equally moronic.

"body massage, bathing together, masturbation, sensuous feeding, fantasizing, watching erotic movies, reading erotic books and magazines."

My son was a virgin at least until he was 17 which was as good as I could haved hoped for, and my daughter who is 15 is still hanging out with friends instead of dating, so I feel pretty lucky, but they went to a private elementary school. Perhaps some cutting edge social worker will ask 1st, 3rd. and 5th graders in public schools what they think about grape jelly as a sexual lubricant, but peanut butter and jelly sandwiches cannot be served because the peanut butter is dangerous, you know.

And by the way, my son who is now in college, is in love, which I think is so much better than taking the the grape jelly up the peanut butter hole (chunky), that Ace seems to be so fond of.

"grape jelly"

What for, a remake of '9 1/2 weeks, Juvenile Edition?'

My 11 y/o is still playing with nerf guns and legos! Home schooling rocks. He can play with the grape jelly when he's older.

Time to bring back the "vaginas have teeth" myth. Teach the boys to FEAR THE ROAST BEEF CURTAINS!

Why on Earth would anybody think that teaching kids as young as nine years old about lubricants, body massage, and sources of erotica is a good thing?
Can't we let them have a childhood first?

No matter the time or place, or the specific topic being taught, the debate over sex education invariably seems to boil down to conservatives who want to protect childhood innocence for as long as possible vs. liberals who believe that childhood innocence is, at best, an expensive luxury in today's world. (Urban liberals in particular, who putatively represent kids who already have to deal with stuff like poverty, drugs and gangs, probably regard sex ed's effect on childhood innocence as a cigarette lighter in an already-raging inferno.)

It is that mentality, and the nanny-state mindset from which it flows, that should really be of concern to parents, not the specifics like the grape-jelly stuff.

My 13-year old son is into building up his computer and doesn't care diddly-poo about girls. Not yet, anyway. Because he's home-schooled, he hasn't experienced the intense pressure that exists in most middle schools to pair off, date, get a girlfriend, etc.

This bit strikes me as being egregriously lame:

Focus on Kids, a curriculum for 9-15-year-olds, assigns teens to create a list of ways to be close to a person without having intercourse, including, "body massage, bathing together, masturbation, sensuous feeding, fantasizing, watching erotic movies, reading erotic books and magazines."

So, in other words, get a bunch of teenagers thinking about sex, fantasizing about sex, stimulating themselves, pretending to have sex, touching each other erotically, getting naked together, maybe do a bit of heavy petting, BUT FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, DON'T ANYBODY HAVE ACTUAL INTERCOURSE BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T BE A GOOD IDEA AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Although 9 years old may be a bit early to start, teaching ONLY abstinence is going to create a society of people who are afraid of sex.

Muse, I agree with the nanny-stating comment. More and more we're seeing both conservatives and liberals looking to the government to regulate their children, instead of realizing that those are actual *gasp* PEOPLE who came out of them, and those people have minds, hearts, desires, and thoughts of their own. When people start letting corporations and governments parent their kids, they lose control and end up with out-of-control kids.

This is why the gulag schools are so popular. Parents give up all responsibility to the government, and then flip out when the kids react negatively. If you want your kids to become restricted little clones, then go ahead and keep them from learning anything. But if you want intelligent kids who make the right decisions, give them all the information they need to make that decision.

I'm getting hot just thinking about grape jelly

"No matter the time or place, or the specific topic being taught, the debate over sex education invariably seems to boil down to conservatives who want to protect childhood innocence for as long as possible vs. liberals who believe that childhood innocence is, at best, an expensive luxury in today's world. (Urban liberals in particular, who putatively represent kids who already have to deal with stuff like poverty, drugs and gangs, probably regard sex ed's effect on childhood innocence as a cigarette lighter in an already-raging inferno.)"

I guess I'm a liberal then. I don't see that childhood innocence serves any real purpose whatsoever.

Seriously. The point of raising kids is to turn them into adults, not to keep them in a supposedly blissful state of childhood as long as you can. A child is ignorant and helpless and must live under absolute despotism for his own good... you think making that condition last longer is a good thing for him?

"It is that mentality, and the nanny-state mindset from which it flows, that should really be of concern to parents, not the specifics like the grape-jelly stuff."

The idea that childhood ignorance and helplessness is not a good thing comes from a "nanny-state mindset"? No, the nanny-state mindset is that, to some extent, our childhood and our need for supervision to protect us from ourselves lasts our entire lives.

esb tanning bed tanning salon bed tanning bed light tanning bed lamp tanning bed cleaner tanning bed for sale tanning bed bulb sunvision tanning bed tanning bed part discount tanning bed tanning bed replacement bulb discount tanning bed ets tanning bed how to use a tanning bed bed company tanning pregnant and tanning bed are tanning bed safe tanning bed effects how to use a tanning bed wolfe tanning bed tanning bed tip tanning bed lotion