Why eat paste when you can .....?

[Darth Executor]

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2050710.ece



Norwegians woke up Tuesday morning to news that a respected Oslo pre-school teacher, backed by child psychologists, thinks children should be allowed to openly express their own sexuality, not least through sex play and games in the local day care centers known as barnehager, or kindergartens.

Children, she said, should be able "to look at each other and examine each other's bodies. They can play doctor, play mother and father, dance naked and masturbate.


*sigh*
As if a lot of people didn't consider Psychology a joke already.

[EvoUK]

Eew- everyone knows that a self-respecting kindergardener plays doctor in the privacy of their own home- this is how it should be!

Apparently I tried it once in playschool and the teacher (if you can call them that) was shocked... lol

[aardvarkcore]

Next thing we know they will start a paedophile state!

[Lazarus]

Hey, what's a fantasy unless you can impose it on someone, especially if they're young, defenseless, and too inexperienced to recognize a predator when they see one?

[Turgonian]

aardvarkcore -- We (the Dutch) had a political party for pedophiles some time ago. However, the outrage was so great that it disbanded itself.

Brave New World! Encouraging children to engage in sexual play (and, no doubt, asking what's wrong with a boy who is already 10 years old and doesn't want to), and fighting the words 'Mom' and 'Dad' (discussed in the other thread). It's horrible.

[Wyzaard]

*sigh*
As if a lot of people didn't consider Psychology a joke already.

Ummm... why is her position wrong? Make your case, and remember that she's not talking about pedophilia, but playing doctor amongst same-age kids.

[Gabby]

Ummm... why is her position wrong? Make your case, and remember that she's not talking about pedophilia, but playing doctor amongst same-age kids.

What's wrong with it is that some kids come to the table with life experiences that are waaaaay beyond what any child that age should have. For example, one little girl in my sons kindergarten class informed all her friends about various sexual encounters via the phone. Then one day during recess told my son about blow jobs. Only after I confronted the teacher and told them who she was did it stop.

That's why

[Wyzaard]

What's wrong with it is that some kids come to the table with life experiences that are waaaaay beyond what any child that age should have. For example, one little girl in my sons kindergarten class informed all her friends about various sexual encounters via the phone. Then one day during recess told my son about blow jobs. Only after I confronted the teacher and told them who she was did it stop.

That's why

Ummm... what's this have to do with playing doctor, which has nothing to do with adult acts or terminology concerning them? It would seem that children naturally play with one another in these pre-sexual ways; how are these life-experiences in the sense that you think they are... and why shouldn't they have them, anyways?

[Gabby]

Nothing Wyzaard nothing at all. :ahem: :sigh: But if you take the whole premise of the article into consideration it is very relevant.

[Glenn P]

Ummm... why is her position wrong? Make your case, and remember that she's not talking about pedophilia, but playing doctor amongst same-age kids.Ah, good ol Wyz, defending the right of preschool teachers to encourage masturbation among pupils. Oh yeah, and then downplay what you're doing by only mentioning the part about playing doctor - something preschool kids already do.

[Wyzaard]

Nothing Wyzaard nothing at all. :ahem: :sigh: But if you take the whole premise of the article into consideration it is very relevant.

Ok then... more context:

"Children, she said, should be able "to look at each other and examine each other's bodies. They can play doctor, play mother and father, dance naked and masturbate.

But their sexuality must also be socialized, so they are not, for example, allowed to masturbate while sitting and eating. Nor can they be allowed to pressure other children into doing things they don't want to."

...

"Children must learn about sexuality, otherwise things can go very wrong," said Langfeldt. "Children can't object to something they don't know about, and children can more easily and readily report assaults if they already are aware of their own sexuality."

-----

So... what's wrong with this position?

[Wyzaard]

Ah, good ol Wyz, defending the right of preschool teachers to encourage masturbation among pupils. Oh yeah, and then downplay what you're doing by only mentioning the part about playing doctor - something preschool kids already do.

This has nothing to do with 'encouragement'... the teacher in question "thinks children should be allowed to openly express their own sexuality, not least through sex play and games"; nothing of her position or mine indicates encouragement of activities that happen anyways... they (and I) simply believe that such activities shouldn't be prohibited, within certain qualifications.

So... are you going to continue to misrepresent me?

[Glenn P]

Wyz, are you indicating, by quoting all that, that you agree with all of it - including the advocacy by an adult preschool teacher of normalising preschoolers masturbating (so long as they are not sitting and eating)?

Do you agree with all of this, Wyz?


PS: Just saw your complaint. By "encouraging," I meant encouraging the freedom to do it and the normalisation thereof. Skip the whine, get to the meat of the issue.

[Gabby]

Ok then... more context:

"Children, she said, should be able "to look at each other and examine each other's bodies. They can play doctor, play mother and father, dance naked and masturbate.

But their sexuality must also be socialized, so they are not, for example, allowed to masturbate while sitting and eating. Nor can they be allowed to pressure other children into doing things they don't want to."

...

"Children must learn about sexuality, otherwise things can go very wrong," said Langfeldt. "Children can't object to something they don't know about, and children can more easily and readily report assaults if they already are aware of their own sexuality."

-----

So... what's wrong with this position?


:ahem: ok not only does the teacher need to teach the kids their abc's and how to share their toys they now have to supervise some toddler who wants to masturbate so that they do in a socially acceptable manner. "No no Johnny, jello is for eating not......" "Janey I know you like touching yourself there but please wait til nap time." "yes yes Timmy I know mommy's boyfriend told you about blow jobs, but today we're discussing the letter C, I'm sure the rest of the class would rather hear about later".

[Wyzaard]

:ahem: ok not only does the teacher need to teach the kids their abc's and how to share their toys they now have to supervise some toddler who wants to masturbate so that they do in a socially acceptable manner. "No no Johnny, jello is for eating not......" "Janey I know you like touching yourself there but please wait til nap time." "yes yes Timmy I know mommy's boyfriend told you about blow jobs, but today we're discussing the letter C, I'm sure the rest of the class would rather hear about later".

Ummm... how is this an argument?

[Gabby]

I already gave my "argument" but you hand waved it away. Please reread post #7. If you don't get it, then that ain't my problem.

[Vigilante]

OK, gross, sick, twisted, demented, pathetic.

I realize that their "kindergarten" is from age 1 to 6.

Now let's pretend I am a kindergarten teacher in America, class with age 5 and 6 perhaps. Now suppose, as a man, I go tell everybody I think my little boys and girls should dance naked and play with each other and masturbate (masturbate!?!) if they want to. I would hope, I mean HOPE, that I would be stripped of my credentials and thrown out of school never to be a teacher again. What the heck?

So are the teachers to help direct the boys on how to "operate" on the girls? Or just sit and watch? Are classrooms supposed to be clothing optional? What about substitute teachers? Visitors? Why allow all this and not "hold back" their sexuality, and THEN say no later on? I mean, surely there will be an age where dancing naked in class and playing with private parts will not be allowed. So once kids are used to it, you THEN tell them it's not right to do it?

Leave it to the Nords.

[Darth Executor]

Ummm... why is her position wrong? Make your case, and remember that she's not talking about pedophilia, but playing doctor amongst same-age kids.

Yes, what IS wrong with little kids masturbating in public? A question only Wyzaard would ask.

[Turgonian]

A question most of us (me in the first place) have trouble finding an answer to, because it seems so obvious.

I wonder what feelings Brave New World arouses in Wyzaard. Maybe a sensation that might be described as 'futuro-nostalgic'...

[Wyzaard]

I already gave my "argument" but you hand waved it away. Please reread post #7. If you don't get it, then that ain't my problem.

Ok, so you concede then, as your so-called argument didn't actually deal with the issue?

[Wyzaard]

So are the teachers to help direct the boys on how to "operate" on the girls? Or just sit and watch? Are classrooms supposed to be clothing optional? What about substitute teachers? Visitors?

If you had actually read the article thoroughly, you would have noticed that no one is advocating these things.



Why allow all this and not "hold back" their sexuality, and THEN say no later on? I mean, surely there will be an age where dancing naked in class and playing with private parts will not be allowed. So once kids are used to it, you THEN tell them it's not right to do it?


Or more accurately, it's ok to do it in certain situations in a safe and respectful manner.

[Wyzaard]

Yes, what IS wrong with little kids masturbating in public? A question only Wyzaard would ask.

Argument from obviousness, a fallacy.

[Wyzaard]

I wonder what feelings Brave New World arouses in Wyzaard. Maybe a sensation that might be described as 'futuro-nostalgic'...

In Huxley's work, the children are mandated to sex-play in a specific manner for a narrow ideological purpose; this is again not what the norse teacher is saying.

[Darth Executor]

Argument from self-evidence, a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy because it's not an argument in the first place. I'm just mocking you.

[Gabby]

Ok, so you concede then, as your so-called argument didn't actually deal with the issue?

What ever makes your little heart happy Wyzaard. :ahem:

[JusticeMachine]

Ummm... why is her position wrong? Make your case, and remember that she's not talking about pedophilia, but playing doctor amongst same-age kids.

The only reason I can see given for allowing children to masturbate is:

"Children must learn about sexuality, otherwise things can go very wrong," said Langfeldt. "Children can't object to something they don't know about, and children can more easily and readily report assaults if they already are aware of their own sexuality."

I think things can and will go more wrong if children are allow and encouraged to become sexually active at such a young age. Raising the spector of sexual assault if a straw man to me. I am reading between the lines, but IMO this is about objectifing children sexually and trying to make it socially acceptable, under the guise of education.

Children at that age are a sponge, and what you concentrate on, with them, is what they will become, on the whole. If a child is raised in an abusive environment, they usually become abusers themselves. In a western civilization that seem inordinately preoccupied with sex, I believe the last thing we should do is set our children up to become future sex addicts due to beign overexposed to a very potent feeling/emotion at such a young age.

The whole idea is wrong headed and needs to be fought.

[Conductor42]

What ever makes your little heart happy Wyzaard. :ahem:
You know, I wonder if Wyz has ever heard of the phrase "Pot. Kettle. Black". He does it just as often.

[Wyzaard]

It's not a fallacy because it's not an argument in the first place. I'm just mocking you.

Ok then... so you're just wasting our time, as per usual?

[Wyzaard]

The only reason I can see given for allowing children to masturbate is:

"Children must learn about sexuality, otherwise things can go very wrong," said Langfeldt. "Children can't object to something they don't know about, and children can more easily and readily report assaults if they already are aware of their own sexuality."

I think things can and will go more wrong if children are allow and encouraged to become sexually active at such a young age. Raising the spector of sexual assault if a straw man to me. I am reading between the lines, but IMO this is about objectifing children sexually and trying to make it socially acceptable, under the guise of education.

You're misunderstanding his point; being more aware of your sexuality is a far cry from being sexually active... and rather than objectifying children sexually, this exploration is almost entirely subjective.



Children at that age are a sponge, and what you concentrate on, with them, is what they will become, on the whole. If a child is raised in an abusive environment, they usually become abusers themselves. In a western civilization that seem inordinately preoccupied with sex, I believe the last thing we should do is set our children up to become future sex addicts due to beign overexposed to a very potent feeling/emotion at such a young age.


Huh? Again, who's talking about them being sexually active? And how is it 'setting our kids up' to simply allow them to harmlessly explore their bodies?

[JusticeMachine]

You're misunderstanding his point; being more aware of your sexuality is a far cry from being sexually active... and rather than objectifying children sexually, this exploration is almost entirely subjective.


Being sexually active means taking sexual action. Masturebating is being sexually active; or is masturebation not a sexual act?


Huh? Again, who's talking about them being sexually active? And how is it 'setting our kids up' to simply allow them to harmlessly explore their bodies?

Because children need to be guided and taught, not allowed to randomly explore, randomly exploring leads to kids getting hurt or making incorrect associations about, well everything.

Kids get enough exploration of their bodies during bath time, they don't need to go around fondeling other kids. Really, what is that going to teach a child of 3 that they can't or won't learn later in life, and hopefully under better circumstances?

[Darth Executor]

Ok then... so you're just wasting our time, as per usual?

"Our" time? You think anybody takes you seriously? :lmbo:
You're probably tweb's longest running joke and don't even realise it. People have discussions with you for the same reason why little boys like to poke the corpses of dead animals with a stick: morbid curiosity.

[Pilgrim]

Of course no one has mentioned the obvious fact that the teacher who is endorsing this gets to supervise the "activities." nice.

[Teallaura]

Considering the amount of time some parents have to spend getting kids to put there clothes on I think they should sue any school teaching them to take those clothes off.


Children at that age have no 'sexuality' in the sensuous sense. They are just curious - same reason they pick up virtually any object. They don't need to explore the bodies of other kids (I note no one has mentioned that just cause little Johnny wants to play doctor doesn't mean little Susie isn't going to have a hard time with it) - they need to learn how to behave in public and how to play with other kids. Put your clothes on and don't hit.

:ahem:

[Teallaura]

Of course no one has mentioned the obvious fact that the teacher who is endorsing this gets to supervise the "activities." nice.

Yup - and I'm betting that they will suddenly have an upswing in the number of men wanting to teach kindergarten.

[JusticeMachine]

Yup - and I'm betting that they will suddenly have an upswing in the number of men wanting to teach kindergarten.

Hey, I think I see a new angle for the "To Catch a Predator" series. :ahem:

[Vigilante]

If you had actually read the article thoroughly, you would have noticed that no one is advocating these things.
As if it could never happen unless advocated. The idea presented seems to go along the lines of, "well gee, we aught not suppress ANYTHING children want to do/see/explore/touch/play/feel lest they grow up to be utterly and terribly screwed up.
I read stuff like this and it sounds to me like people just don't want boundaries any more. As if making rules will stint growth and mess people up. What is wrong with telling kids not to touch each others' privates, and to keep their clothes on in school? This is going to hurt their sexuality? Come now.


Or more accurately, it's ok to do it in certain situations in a safe and respectful manner.
Do what, exactly? Dancing naked and masturbating is not something you teach to do safely and respectfully IN SCHOOL! I mean give me a break, wyz don't you believe in boundaries and rules AT ALL?

[Sparko]

I sure hope Wyzaard never has kids.

[JSDileo]

Please tell me Wyzaard has been endorsed for a screwball. :ahem:

This is just pathetic...

[Conductor42]

I sure hope Wyzaard never has kids.
One can learn a lot from kids.

[Teallaura]

One can learn a lot from kids.

You've obviously never read Lord of the Flies....

[Wyzaard]

Being sexually active means taking sexual action. Masturebating is being sexually active; or is masturebation not a sexual act?


Not with another person, no; typically, being 'sexually active' involves intercourse or oral play with another. Are you condemning masturbation in general then? If you caught your child masturbating, would you punish them for being 'sexually active'?



Because children need to be guided and taught, not allowed to randomly explore, randomly exploring leads to kids getting hurt or making incorrect associations about, well everything.


Ummm... most of a child's day, particularly when very young, is random exploration of their environments and themselves. Guidance and teaching from elders is important, but they need their own freedom to explore and work things out on their own, to a degree.



Kids get enough exploration of their bodies during bath time, they don't need to go around fondeling other kids. Really, what is that going to teach a child of 3 that they can't or won't learn later in life, and hopefully under better circumstances?

Respecting another person's body and their own, for one thing; the teacher in this case wants her kids to possess self-respect and awareness of other's feelings, boundaries, etc. Such play does just that... vilify those feelings, and you set the child up for disaster; they'll view their own bodies and the bodies of others with hostility. Most sex predators have been shown to have had abusively restrictive sexual environments at home.

[Wyzaard]

Of course no one has mentioned the obvious fact that the teacher who is endorsing this gets to supervise the "activities." nice.

Keeping the kids from taking things too far, teaching them mutual respect, etc.

[Wyzaard]

Children at that age have no 'sexuality' in the sensuous sense. They are just curious - same reason they pick up virtually any object.

Then you don't need to freak out when they play with themselves or other children in harmless ways; it's pre-sexual play.

[Wyzaard]

Yup - and I'm betting that they will suddenly have an upswing in the number of men wanting to teach kindergarten.

Wow... don't like teachers, huh?

[Wyzaard]

As if it could never happen unless advocated. The idea presented seems to go along the lines of, "well gee, we aught not suppress ANYTHING children want to do/see/explore/touch/play/feel lest they grow up to be utterly and terribly screwed up.
I read stuff like this and it sounds to me like people just don't want boundaries any more. As if making rules will stint growth and mess people up. What is wrong with telling kids not to touch each others' privates, and to keep their clothes on in school? This is going to hurt their sexuality?

It will if you demonize their feelings and instill sexual repression rather than allow them to express their pre-sexual exploration safely (within boundaries).



Do what, exactly? Dancing naked and masturbating is not something you teach to do safely and respectfully IN SCHOOL! I mean give me a break, wyz don't you believe in boundaries and rules AT ALL?

Ummm... where did you get the impression that I don't believe in rules and boundaries here, much less universally? You're slipping into hyperbole.

[Wyzaard]

Please tell me Wyzaard has been endorsed for a screwball. :ahem:

This is just pathetic...

Because? (hint: you need to provide a solid reason here)

[JSDileo]

Because? (hint: you need to provide a solid reason here)

Why? Explain why I need to elaborate on why allowing students in school to masturbate whenever they want-except when they eat, is obviously ridiculous.

[Teallaura]

Wow... don't like teachers, huh?Just the perverted ones like you.

[JusticeMachine]

Not with another person, no; typically, being 'sexually active' involves intercourse or oral play with another. Are you condemning masturbation in general then? If you caught your child masturbating, would you punish them for being 'sexually active'?

I disagree, being sexually active is to act out sexually, wheather alone or with another. To say "caught my child masturbating" implies my child was trying to hide it. Granted my son is only 2 1/2 years old, but he doesn't really masturbate in the sense an adult would. He finds his part interesting, may play with it while on the potty, when getting his diaper changed or in the bathtub, but he doesn't obsess over it. That being the case I don't say anything, short of acknowledging that he has a penis and telling him that that is what little boys have then giving him the correct name for it. That is about all children at that age need, that idea of masturbation in the adult sense is forgien to them and should stay that way. Why open that can of worms?



Ummm... most of a child's day, particularly when very young, is random exploration of their environments and themselves. Guidance and teaching from elders is important, but they need their own freedom to explore and work things out on their own, to a degree.

It is supervised exploration with teaching included when the opportunity presents it's self. I suspect there is an air of randomness to it, but not the way you seem to be putting it. My child is not allow in a room by himself, or seldom so. If he is in his room I or my wife is there, and he plays and during that time I will intervene to teach him the name of something or ask him a question about a toy or something to push his limits.





Respecting another person's body and their own, for one thing; the teacher in this case wants her kids to possess self-respect and awareness of other's feelings, boundaries, etc. Such play does just that... vilify those feelings, and you set the child up for disaster; they'll view their own bodies and the bodies of others with hostility.


What feelings are being vilified? As discussed in other post here, children have little or no sexual feelings. Discipline is NOT villification.


Most sex predators have been shown to have had abusively restrictive sexual environments at home.


Straw man! Define abusively restrictive sexual environments. Is the current school system, not teaching 1-5 years about masturbation considered an abusively restrictive sexual environment?

[JusticeMachine]

It will if you demonize their feelings and instill sexual repression rather than allow them to express their pre-sexual exploration safely (within boundaries).

No one is demonizing their feelings, just discipling them. There is a difference.

[Wyzaard]

I disagree, being sexually active is to act out sexually, wheather alone or with another.

Then you and I use the term differently.



To say "caught my child masturbating" implies my child was trying to hide it. Granted my son is only 2 1/2 years old, but he doesn't really masturbate in the sense an adult would. He finds his part interesting, may play with it while on the potty, when getting his diaper changed or in the bathtub, but he doesn't obsess over it. That being the case I don't say anything, short of acknowledging that he has a penis and telling him that that is what little boys have then giving him the correct name for it. That is about all children at that age need, that idea of masturbation in the adult sense is forgien to them and should stay that way. Why open that can of worms?


It's a can of worms? Kids play with one another, sometimes poking parts in the process; if no one is hurt, coerced, etc... what's the big deal? They're not having sex by any stretch of the imagination.



It is supervised exploration with teaching included when the opportunity presents it's self. I suspect there is an air of randomness to it, but not the way you seem to be putting it. My child is not allow in a room by himself, or seldom so. If he is in his room I or my wife is there, and he plays and during that time I will intervene to teach him the name of something or ask him a question about a toy or something to push his limits.

Ok... so why is a teacher barred from doing a VERY limited form of this sort of supervision?



What feelings are being vilified? As discussed in other post here, children have little or no sexual feelings. Discipline is NOT villification.


Why should they be disciplined in this manner if, as you state, no sexual feelings are involved?



Is the current school system, not teaching 1-5 years about masturbation considered an abusively restrictive sexual environment?

Depends... are they being 'disciplined'? What are they being taught about their bodies?

[JusticeMachine]

They are being taught the names for their body parts and the appropriate usage for them. They are being taught that others have a personal space and personal areas that they need to keep their hands away from. This is a very good lesson as if they don't learn it it can get them in a lot of trouble later in life. Best to teach it when they are young.

Example:

John touches Susie's private area.

Teach says, "Yes John, Susie is different than you, but we keep our hands to ourselves, don't we."

First time it happens, this is the response, if it keeps happening, time outs will insue. If the child is obsessing over it, then a counselor may need to become involved.

The boundries of personal space, personal privacy and certain areas of the body that are private/personal, should be encouraged. We shouldn't be breaking them down.

[spitndirt]

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2050710.ece



*sigh*
As if a lot of people didn't consider Psychology a joke already.


Hmmm.......I was eating paste well before I discovered masterbation. I was thinking that all the paste I had eaten in kindergarten somehow caused my right arm to begin acting inappropriately at puberty.

:lol:

[Mark_S]

So do we redefine field trip as "Getting into a car with a complete stranger for free candy"?

[Vigilante]

It will if you demonize their feelings and instill sexual repression rather than allow them to express their pre-sexual exploration safely (within boundaries).
The idea is to teach proper behavior while they are young so when real sexual feelings start coming around, they won't already think touching each other and stripping in front of the opposite sex is OK to do.
What is worse Wyz, teaching the sort of behavior that will be consistent as they grow up? Or allowing certain behavior until some random time when suddenly it is NOT OK, thus appearing to have double standards? "But Wyz, it was OK for me to be naked in front of the girls last week?!? Now it's not? That behavior was safe then but now it's not after this last magical week?" But if they are taught to respect each others' bodies and "private space" then there are no magic points of change. That doesn't mean anything needs to be demonized, it isn't about, "well our nudity is dirty and gross and evil so stay covered up". It is just about decency and respect and public behavior. Why is telling kids to not strip in front of people EQUAL to demonizing our bodies? It's like saying don't eat poop is demonizing our sense of taste, but it isn't, it's just proper use of it.


Ummm... where did you get the impression that I don't believe in rules and boundaries here, much less universally? You're slipping into hyperbole.
This whole issue has gone far beyond hyperbole! I think you've sensed the sort of automatic DUH from participants here that this is so obviously backwards.
The problem is that you keep using the wrong words to describe things. To you everything becomes oppression, demonizing, fundy, over-sensitive, delicate sensibilities, bla bla. But all it is is simple boundaries, proper social behavior, respectful play, training for future behavior. It's not all bad Wyz.


Peace

[jgarden]

"When the temptation to masturbate is strong, yell STOP to those thoughts as loudly as you can in your mind and then recite a prechosen Scripture or sing an inspirational hymn."
- Mormon advice

Obviously they don't recite Scripture or sing insirational hymns in Norwegian schools.

[Pilgrim]

This whole issue has gone far beyond hyperbole! I think you've sensed the sort of automatic DUH from participants here that this is so obviously backwards.
The problem is that you keep using the wrong words to describe things. To you everything becomes oppression, demonizing, fundy, over-sensitive, delicate sensibilities, bla bla. But all it is is simple boundaries, proper social behavior, respectful play, training for future behavior. It's not all bad Wyz.
Peace

I think for Wyz what we're seeing is simple ODD.

[Wyzaard]

The idea is to teach proper behavior while they are young so when real sexual feelings start coming around, they won't already think touching each other and stripping in front of the opposite sex is OK to do.

Again, this is not what the teacher was saying; she stressed that respect of others bodies would be instilled. Thus this:



"But Wyz, it was OK for me to be naked in front of the girls last week?!? Now it's not? That behavior was safe then but now it's not after this last magical week?"

Isn't an issue, as "they are taught to respect each others' bodies and "private space"", but are also allowed to mutually explore each other if they both wish.



To you everything becomes oppression, demonizing, fundy, over-sensitive, delicate sensibilities, bla bla. But all it is is simple boundaries, proper social behavior, respectful play, training for future behavior. It's not all bad Wyz.


But I note my audience's sqeamishness with sex in general, and say to myself "Are they opposing this woman because they are worried about developmental appropriateness and boundary respect, or do they just want to castrate all those children so that they grow up to be sexually-repressed culture-warriors like them?"

[Turgonian]

Isn't an issue, as "they are taught to respect each others' bodies and "private space"", but are also allowed to mutually explore each other if they both wish.
Question one: Even when the pre-sexual stage is past?
Question two: Should they be allowed to do this in school?

Once again, Wyzaard, you do not distinguish between repression and discipline. Monogamous culture warriors are not (necessarily) 'sexually repressed'; instead, they have learnt how to canalize and focus their desires.

Which is why marital sex gives greater pleasure than extramarital sex, according to research.

[Gabby]

Tell me Wyzaard, how does one find the line of a child where they are comfortable with what's going on and where they are not and the line has been crossed?

One kid is alright with one thing and the other kid isn't so much and that line won't be found until it's crossed. Cross that line once, which will happen because we all know that kids push the boundaries, your walking a fine line of harassment or abuse. Then there are the kids who no matter how well they are brought up will always let someone else take advantage of them, it's their personality. Some kids take years to learn how to stand up for themselves. They will let on that every is a-ok, but still allow things that go against their nature or their conscience.

How about the child that has disabilities or deformities? How does a Down's Syndrome child protect their rights or learn to understand the rights of others? Their learning capabilities are at different rates than a normal child. A child who has the mind of a 4 year old but the body of a 10 year old, how do you explain boundries to him?

How about a child who has been sexually abused? How do tell them that Johnny who likes to run around chasing the girls with his penis that it's ok cuz their just having fun and exploring. Or how about when the abused child tries to mimic the abuses that they have suffered through. Even one attempt is abuse!

How about the child that comes from a country where their religion that see nudity or sexual expressions as taboo, where even showing your hair is punishable?

Then what Wyzaard?

[Vigilante]

Again, this is not what the teacher was saying; she stressed that respect of others bodies would be instilled. Thus this:
...
Isn't an issue, as "they are taught to respect each others' bodies and "private space"", but are also allowed to mutually explore each other if they both wish.
Two things:
First half of your comment ) "Respect" being the key term. Of course how far does "respect" go? Respect meaning, "don't try to get others naked for you and don't try to feel them up." Or does respect end with, "well you can strip them and play with them only if they agree?"
I think it is more respectful NOT to try and intrude on the private space of another or "convince" them to do the things you want.

2nd half ) The core morality here is "it's OK as long as both agree."
I simply reject this value, things can still be wrong regardless of whether both agree. I could probably talk 8-10 year old girls into being naked around me for whatever reason. I could certainly justify it by "teaching" her that her body is not gross and she shouldn't feel weird and that there is nothing wrong with her and she doesn't have to feel ashamed or shy, etc... etc.. etc... And certainly since I'm a lovable and safe guy, they probably WOULD do it, change in front of me or whatever. But still, do you think I am being respectful to her by making it her own choice to be naked around me? Am I within respectful boundaries to have nude kids around me because we both agree it's OK?
There was a story recently about a man who babysat for his neighbor next door. Don't know if they were house-to-house, but pretty much neighbors. And this man molested one of the girls for YEARS, from age 7 to 11 and the girl never told anybody. Why? I'm not sure the extent of molestation, but certainly the guy was doing something to her. Why wouldn't she tell? Was she under threat? It would seem hard for a young girl to keep that kind of thing secret, at least she would attempt to tell mom she doesn't like that babysitter? Or maybe she kept quiet because he had clever arguments about how this is all OK and perhaps even got her permission to "do stuff" to her? Who freakin knows what these sick people tell kids, or how in the world they can get away with it and the kids not tell anybody. The point is that the kids don't KNOW what is and is not proper because apparently if you tell them anything about their bodies, it is oppressive and demonizing. If these kids KNEW that people are not allowed to intrude on their personal space or talk them into doing things, then maybe more kids would speak up in protest? If it's OK for little Mary to to have little Jonny pinching her butt as they run around naked giggling, why would it be wrong for babysitter Bob to have her running around naked pinching her butt? All you do is confuse kids. But if you lay down the law of personal space and what is and is not OK, they don't have to let babysitter bob do what playmate Jonny does. And playmate Jonny doesn't grow up to BECOME babysitter Bob because he wasn't taught boundaries either. He was taught that as long as the other person agrees, it must be OK, but if they don't agree, it is disrespectful.



But I note my audience's sqeamishness with sex in general, and say to myself "Are they opposing this woman because they are worried about developmental appropriateness and boundary respect, or do they just want to castrate all those children so that they grow up to be sexually-repressed culture-warriors like them?"
Has anybody on tweb ever expressed a squeamishness with sex? Or just objection outside of bounds? Saying Z is bad unless A, B, C are true, does not mean they are squeamish about Z. It just means they have prerequisites and boundaries for proper expression of it.
I personally desire developmental appropriateness and boundary respect. Of course, terms like those all need to be defined, but that's for another time. If "sexually repressed" means guarding yourself until marriage; means not objectifying your body or the bodies of others; means treating people like they are more then a means to sensual and lustful ends; then yes, I want people to be sexually repressed. Not to look on other people as a means to an end, but as an individual with a right to treat their body and give their body however they want to. Not how liberals and free-sex hippies want them to.

I don't have kids and I don't know at what age I'll have to have "the talk" with them when I do have kids. But I know that I can teach them how to treat their body and what is and is not appropriate for people to want/do/see/touch etc... The only person oppressed by this teaching is the one trying to GET them to misbehave. Not the one I have trained. It is not the 10 year old girl being oppressed by not showing herself to her male teacher or babysitter, whatever. It's the guy trying to get her to, poor baby. And if I train her right, she will immediately tell me about what the teacher did, or whoever it was. How terrible that that poor little girl was so scared or confused by the babysitter that she would tell her parents even after four years. Did she not trust her parents to protect her? How irresponsible that the parents never thought to ask ONCE if the babysitter maybe did something wrong to them. Or could not perceive anything about this situation.


Wyz, we hardly live in a sexually repressed country. Sexual morality is on a very fast decline. Repression is hardly the term to use to describe the state of sexuality in America.
If kindergarteners are allowed to fondle each other, what happens by the time they are 10 or 11? Perhaps what happens is the schools have to start handing contraceptives to them like in Maine (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/19/national/main3384673.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3384673). And apparently 11 and 12 year olds having sex is not a problem, just that they are "protected" from pregnancy becomes the important issue now. How messed up can you get? These kids need psychological help and guidance, not the morning after pill. 11 year olds are not 20 year olds, they are not ready for that. But in typical leftist fashion, they don't care about root causes, they just want to patch the symptoms. Never mind that kids are cutting themselves and hurting themselves, "they're going to do it anyway" and "rules don't stop them", let's just make sure bandaids are available everywhere. Who cares that pubescent children want to partake in what has traditionally been the most sacred and intimate expression of love as an "experiment" and something to do for fun? Let's just make sure the 12 year olds aren't getting pregnant, yes, that's the most important issue.

And all because some bright teacher of questionable sexual preference wants 4 year olds to fondle each other naked so they aren't "sexually repressed". Yes, so they can have healthy normal sexual relations by the 6th grade. So when she is maybe 18-22 and falls in love and wants to get married, she can't possibly count the number of partners she's had or how many possible pregnancies have been countered or how many times she's slept around.

Training begins before preschool. And they do NEED training, nobody grows up with natural moral tendencies. They don't naturally become decent and respectful and moral and treat others right all on their own. Boys need to know how to treat girls and NOT take advantage of them. Girls need to learn they don't have to give themselves to every guy who says "I love you" alone on his couch. Tell him NO and see how long he loves you then. 11 year olds who want to have sex have serious relationship problems and don't know what they are doing.
There is a lot of blame to go around, that's for sure.



Peace

[Wyzaard]

Question one: Even when the pre-sexual stage is past?
Question two: Should they be allowed to do this in school?

Depends, and depends; developmentally appropriate play should be allowed in school, but after a point the matter becomes interpersonally private.



Once again, Wyzaard, you do not distinguish between repression and discipline. Monogamous culture warriors are not (necessarily) 'sexually repressed'; instead, they have learnt how to canalize and focus their desires.

One man's repression, another man's glory I guess. :ahem:



Which is why marital sex gives greater pleasure than extramarital sex, according to research.

Whose research? Linky?

[Wyzaard]

One kid is alright with one thing and the other kid isn't so much and that line won't be found until it's crossed. Cross that line once, which will happen because we all know that kids push the boundaries, your walking a fine line of harassment or abuse. Then there are the kids who no matter how well they are brought up will always let someone else take advantage of them, it's their personality. Some kids take years to learn how to stand up for themselves. They will let on that every is a-ok, but still allow things that go against their nature or their conscience.

It's good points like this that the teacher and counselors would address in their supervision/instruction; after all, these are the years of value-construction.



How about the child that has disabilities or deformities?

Problems with consent and coercion would make such play problematic, agreed.



How about a child who has been sexually abused? How do tell them that Johnny who likes to run around chasing the girls with his penis that it's ok cuz their just having fun and exploring. Or how about when the abused child tries to mimic the abuses that they have suffered through.

Then the teacher/counselor would stop the child, and notify social services, being thankful that the attempted sex-play uncovered the abuse!



How about the child that comes from a country where their religion that see nudity or sexual expressions as taboo, where even showing your hair is punishable?

Although one could say that cross-cultural tolerance should be respected, if such tolerance only masks repressions... then the school in the home culture might have issue, and/or inform the parents that the school might not be right for them. Sticky, sticky.

[Wyzaard]

Two things:
First half of your comment ) "Respect" being the key term. Of course how far does "respect" go? Respect meaning, "don't try to get others naked for you and don't try to feel them up." Or does respect end with, "well you can strip them and play with them...

Ummm... we're not talking about child molestation here, but same-age pre-sexual exploration. And again, boundaries would be a big part of this instruction.



Has anybody on tweb ever expressed a squeamishness with sex? Or just objection outside of bounds? Saying Z is bad unless A, B, C are true, does not mean they are squeamish about Z. It just means they have prerequisites and boundaries for proper expression of it.
I personally desire developmental appropriateness and boundary respect. Of course, terms like those all need to be defined, but that's for another time. If "sexually repressed" means guarding yourself until marriage; means not objectifying your body or the bodies of others; means treating people like they are more then a means to sensual and lustful ends; then yes, I want people to be sexually repressed.

Makes you a little sqeamish when people talk about mutual expression outside of your religious dictates, huh?



Wyz, we hardly live in a sexually repressed country. Sexual morality is on a very fast decline.


All I see is a lot of carefully-crafted titillation in the media... which only further exacerbates the repression; nowhere are people being encouraged to think about sex, gender, orientation, etc... instead, they are being sold products that take advantage of their ignorance and pent-up desires.



But in typical leftist fashion, they don't care about root causes, they just want to patch the symptoms.

The root causes here are socio-economic inequalities expressed through patriarchy.



And all because some bright teacher of questionable sexual preference wants 4 year olds to fondle each other naked so they aren't "sexually repressed". Yes, so they can have healthy normal sexual relations by the 6th grade. So when she is maybe 18-22 and falls in love and wants to get married, she can't possibly count the number of partners she's had or how many possible pregnancies have been countered or how many times she's slept around.

Oh no! She's impure! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Have fun sliding down that slippery slope.
:ahem:

[Pilgrim]

Here's an interesting contradiction. Genreally it's the more conservaive folks who are the ones who are reasonably upset when some kindergarten or grade school kid gets suspended or expelled for kissing or hugging another kid innocently. The liberal faction gets all up in arms talking about harrasment when in reallity it's all innocent.

And yet, in this case, the liberals, when the behavior is codified and supervised and stripped of its innocent nature, are all for it. What's that about? You can't have it both ways here.

[Turgonian]

Whose research? Linky?
Can't find it now, but I'll keep searching. I do remember reading it, and it is common sense, since focusing on pleasure leads to the diminution of pleasure.


Then the teacher/counselor would stop the child, and notify social services, being thankful that the attempted sex-play uncovered the abuse!
Unless the abuser in question would be Black or homosexual. Social services are notoriously reluctant to oppress them.


Although one could say that cross-cultural tolerance should be respected, if such tolerance only masks repressions... then the school in the home culture might have issue, and/or inform the parents that the school might not be right for them.
Never mind that the vast majority of the 'home culture' of the children's parents attending the schools involved approves of what you call 'repression'. Which is why you're the only one defending those sick psychologists. Try to get some other liberals into this discussion and see what they say. For most people, this is a few bridges too far.


Ummm... we're not talking about child molestation here, but same-age pre-sexual exploration.
In other words, 'You can strip them and play with them.' That's what Vigilante said.


Makes you a little sqeamish [sic] when people talk about mutual expression outside of your religious dictates, huh?
If you want to call the vast majority of people in history 'squeamish', O Morally Enlightened Teacher, go ahead.


All I see is a lot of carefully-crafted titillation in the media...
That's why Vigilante said, 'Sexual morality is on a fast decline.' Affirming, you appear to disagree. But the 'carefully crafted titillation' is a consequence of people being encouraged to take their pleasure, their desire, their 'way of expression' as their moral guidance, rather than traditional values.

You want to know what the Umwertung of sexual values did to the 'economically disadvantaged' and the Blacks, O Lover of Minorities?


The root causes here are socio-economic inequalities expressed through patriarchy.
:lmbo:

Give me a break! Fathers are leaving children and mothers alone to take care of themselves because another woman attracts them, and what we see is a renewed outbreak of patriarchy!

:doh:

Edit: since you're so much in love with research, have a look at Paul Vitz's Family Decline: The Findings of Social Science (http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=1102), packed with statistics.


Oh no! She's impure! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Rather, she has learnt to see men as unreliable, jealous, hedonistic brutes, and will be cautious to enter into a commitment with one.

[Teallaura]

As a side note: one abused, syphilitic child with primary or secondary is all it would take to infect the lot. Labial and penile skin is more than thin enough for T. Pallidium to penetrate in adults - a child's skin offers next to no resistance. Merely touching one another under such circumstances holds the potential for transmitting the bacteria - let's get real here, kids are the best little bacteria transmitters in the world. They'll touch anything and hand washing is a foreign concept. Oral tissue works just as well so when Little Amy sticks her hand in her mouth...

T. Pallidium doesn't live long outside the body but it doesn't have to with children. Physicians in the 30' and 40's were often infected via cuts in their own hands - I even have pictures of such chancres. That's a grown man with thick skin - a young child's skin coupled with their propensity for scraping body parts on concrete? It's a recipe for disaster.

Then there's herpes which can spread asymptomatically. Plus GC and CT which are even more likely to spread via hand contact than T. Pallidium - both live much longer outside the body and both can live quite well in any warm, moist tube - urethral, vaginal or pharyngeal.

And yes, it really happens. I consulted on a case involving an infected 5 year old (police, not the health department, handle follow up on those). I've had near misses with patients of mine caught abusing children and I have interviewed a 12 year old with secondary syphilis. She didn't get it from a playmate and didn't transmit it to one either. My area is rural - urban areas see one heck of a lot more of that than I do.

Great plan....

[Teallaura]

...

Unless the abuser in question was Black or homosexual. Social services are notoriously reluctant to oppress them.


....
I'd just read about such a case yesterday: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07090607.html

Despite growing reservations by staff and complaints from the mother of two of the boys, the two men were treated by the authorities as "trophy carers" who, because of their status as homosexuals were regarded as beyond scrutiny. An independent investigative panel has found that officials of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, controlled by the Labour Party, allowed "the fear of being discriminatory" to lead them to "fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive."
...

The Telegraph quotes one social worker who told the inquiry team, "you didn't want to be seen discriminating against a same-sex couple."
* emphasis mine

And so the source isn't at issue:

British Asso. of Adoption and Fostering: http://www.baaf.org.uk/media/stories/cp.php


Gay foster couple to be sentenced for abusing boys

The Daily Telegraph Online
A gay couple who have been found guilty of sexually abusing boys placed in their foster care have been sentenced to a total of 11 years.Ian Wathey, 40, and his partner Craig Faunch, 32, were found guilty at Leeds Crown Court last month of a series of sex offences against young boys. Wathey has been sentenced to five years and Faunch has been sentenced to six. The sentences begin immediately.The pair were approved as foster carers by Wakefield Council in July 2003, but within months they were using the boys from troubled homes for their own gratification, the court was told. Judge Sally Cahill QC, remanded the men in custody for the preparation of pre-sentence reports and warned them they were "facing a substantial period in custody". Faunch was found guilty of two charges of making indecent photos of a child. The court was told that he used a camcorder to film two eight-year-old boys in the shower. He was also found guilty of five counts of abuse with a 14-year-old boy. The couple, of Pontefract, were found guilty of the charges following a two-week trial.

Scroll down.


Daily Telegraph Online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/23/ngay23.xml



A council was condemned yesterday for failing to prevent a paedophile homosexual couple from abusing young boys even after being alerted by one of the victim's parents.

Foster parents Ian Wathey, 40, and Craig Faunch, 32, face long terms in jail after being convicted of molesting and filming eight-year-old twins and two boys aged 14.

*emphasis mine

[Gabby]

As a side note: one abused, syphilitic child with primary or secondary is all it would take to infect the lot. Labial and penile skin is more than thin enough for T. Pallidium to penetrate in adults - a child's skin offers next to no resistance. Merely touching one another under such circumstances holds the potential for transmitting the bacteria - let's get real here, kids are the best little bacteria transmitters in the world. They'll touch anything and hand washing is a foreign concept. Oral tissue works just as well so when Little Amy sticks her hand in her mouth...

T. Pallidium doesn't live long outside the body but it doesn't have to with children. Physicians in the 30' and 40's were often infected via cuts in their own hands - I even have pictures of such chancres. That's a grown man with thick skin - a young child's skin coupled with their propensity for scraping body parts on concrete? It's a recipe for disaster.

Then there's herpes which can spread asymptomatically. Plus GC and CT which are even more likely to spread via hand contact than T. Pallidium - both live much longer outside the body and both can live quite well in any warm, moist tube - urethral, vaginal or pharyngeal.

And yes, it really happens. I consulted on a case involving an infected 5 year old (police, not the health department, handle follow up on those). I've had near misses with patients of mine caught abusing children and I have interviewed a 12 year old with secondary syphilis. She didn't get it from a playmate and didn't transmit it to one either. My area is rural - urban areas see one heck of a lot more of that than I do.

Great plan....

Let's see, we could use green paper for the head lice notices and pink paper for the STD notices.

[Teallaura]

Let's see, we could use green paper for the head lice notices and pink paper for the STD notices.

That's scary - some idiot will think it's a good idea.

:uneasy:

[RumTumTugger]

It's good points like this that the teacher and counselors would address in their supervision/instruction; after all, these are the years of value-construction.

Notice how the Secular Progressive Wyzaard conveniently fails to mention the most important adults in a child's life to help them learn the value of respect and responsibility? I want my nieces and nephews to grow up to responsibly showing respect and compassion towards others. Not grow up to be irresponsible hateful jerks like Wyzaard is. So I will be helping their Parents bring up them up despite any opposition from teachers like this one and the secular progressives like Wyzaard.

btw Wyzaard you still owe someone an apology for a reprehensible hateful remark you made to them on this forum.


Although one could say that cross-cultural tolerance should be respected, if such tolerance only masks repressions... then the school in the home culture might have issue, and/or inform the parents that the school might not be right for them. Sticky, sticky.

[Wyzaard]

do remember reading it, and it is common sense, since focusing on pleasure leads to the diminution of pleasure.

Or higher expectations and/or wider appreciation of such.



Unless the abuser in question would be Black or homosexual. Social services are notoriously reluctant to oppress them.

Ummm... do you live in some parallel universe? Black and gay couples get the most heat of all.

Nice dodge, btw.



Never mind that the vast majority of the 'home culture' of the children's parents attending the schools involved approves of what you call 'repression'. Which is why you're the only one defending those sick psychologists.

Numbers?



In other words, 'You can strip them and play with them.' That's what Vigilante said.


False... the teacher would not be a participant.



If you want to call the vast majority of people in history 'squeamish',

Appeals to the majority...



That's why Vigilante said, 'Sexual morality is on a fast decline.' Affirming, you appear to disagree. But the 'carefully crafted titillation' is a consequence of people being encouraged to take their pleasure, their desire, their 'way of expression' as their moral guidance, rather than traditional values.

Which do not exist as a unitary value-set; you do understand that there are MANY 'traditional' cultures, including christian ones, don't you?

And again... titillation in the media operates well only if the population is repressed and in need of some release... with capitalism is more than happy to profit off of.



You want to know what the Umwertung of sexual values did to the 'economically disadvantaged' and the Blacks, O Lover of Minorities?


Nearly nothing in comparison to conservative attacks on civil rights legislation, social/community programs, and education.



Edit: since you're so much in love with research, have a look at Paul Vitz's Family Decline: The Findings of Social Science (http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=1102), packed with statistics.

As filtered through conservative catholicism, taking correlations away from root causes and attaching them to lapses in dogma; not very interesting, no.

[Wyzaard]

Notice how the Secular Progressive Wyzaard

Take you Bill O'rally parroting and git!

[Vigilante]

Wyz, why are you still arguing? It is so plainly obvious that it is NOT a good idea for little children to be stripping naked and "dancing" and "masturbating" and playing "doctor" and "exploring" each other in the classroom under "supervision" of a teacher.

There is ZERO connection to being "sexual repressed" by having some rules in school. Teachers are not there to be moral guides about what is the proper way to fondle your classmates. They are there to teach ABCs and 123s. Respect means don't force yourself on others or coerce them to "doing things" with you. Respect means behave and be nice and follow the rules.

[Pilgrim]

Teachers are not there to be moral guides about what is the proper way to fondle your classmates. They are there to teach ABCs and 123s. Respect means don't force yourself on others or coerce them to "doing things" with you. Respect means behave and be nice and follow the rules.

That's a great point. We're asking teachers to function as religious leaders when we ask them to teach morality. We're so concerned with socializing children that we're raising idiots.

I actually had a conversation with someone the other day who thought that Daylight savings time was some special natural effect that only occured in North America and who could not tell me who President Ford was when he died.

Let's start teaching kids how to think and critically evaluate data and lets leave the sexual socilization out of the class room.

[Tfbandie]

That's a great point. We're asking teachers to function as religious leaders when we ask them to teach morality. We're so concerned with socializing children that we're raising idiots.

I actually had a conversation with someone the other day who thought that Daylight savings time was some special natural effect that only occured in North America and who could not tell me who President Ford was when he died.

Let's start teaching kids how to think and critically evaluate data and lets leave the sexual socilization out of the class room.


As a teacher, I'd say about 50% of teaching today actually has to do with teaching students. Liberals want us to be parents, counselors and friends, conservatives want us to meet ridiculous standards, parents want teachers to hand kids a Harvard acceptance, and students are doing what they always do: push boundaries, forge identities, and rebel against authority. The problem is, with students doing what they've always done, we have liberals wanting to make excuses for it, and he have conservatives telling us it's our fault.

[Vigilante]

As a teacher, I'd say about 50% of teaching today actually has to do with teaching students. Liberals want us to be parents, counselors and friends, conservatives want us to meet ridiculous standards, parents want teachers to hand kids a Harvard acceptance, and students are doing what they always do: push boundaries, forge identities, and rebel against authority. The problem is, with students doing what they've always done, we have liberals wanting to make excuses for it, and he have conservatives telling us it's our fault.

That makes sense but I wouldn't say conservatives are saying it is YOUR fault, as a teacher, as a person. It is the teacher's job to teach the material. It is somebody else's job to send well-behaved, respectable kids to the class to learn it.

[Chaotic Void]

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2050710.ece
*sigh*
As if a lot of people didn't consider Psychology a joke already.
They're letting kids Masturbate in PRE-K/KINDERGARTEN!?!?!??!
What next, Legalization of Child Pornography?

Here's what I have to say to those hosers...
[Imitating Judge from My Cousin Vinny]
...You on Drugs...?
[/Imitating Judge from My Cousin Vinny]


But Seriously, It's a very slippery slope.... When/where do they put up the boundaries, if any boundaries at all?

[Turgonian]

That's scary - some idiot will think it's a good idea.

:uneasy:
Yes, and make it obligatory. Then conservatives will argue that politicians are just patching up the symptoms instead of addressing the root causes, and liberals will find a way to blame it on socio-economic causes expressed through patriarchy.


Ummm... do you live in some parallel universe? Black and gay couples get the most heat of all.
Who lives in a parallel universe? Didn't you see Darth Executor's thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103383)?

[RumTumTugger]

Take you Bill O'rally parroting and git!

Pot meet Kettle.

I'm not the one that needs to make an apology for an uncompassionate Sick attack on someone on this forum. It is you Wyzaard. So why don't you prove me wrong about what a monster you are and do the right thing for once instead of making excuses like the secular progressives and their useful idiots do.

[Tfbandie]

That makes sense but I wouldn't say conservatives are saying it is YOUR fault, as a teacher, as a person. It is the teacher's job to teach the material. It is somebody else's job to send well-behaved, respectable kids to the class to learn it.

I'm thinking in terms of No Child left Behind and Merit Pay, which by and large are endorsed by conservatives, both rate teachers by the students performance [although some merit pay programs do try to take individual student progress not just benchmark standards]. So if a student fails for any reason, responisbility falls on the teacher alone.

[DesertBerean]

What winds me up...besides the obvious problems with having naked kids trotting around each other in public...is the idea of the teacher being the moral compass in all this. I realize this is from another country; either the teacher herself represents the kind of education going on in her country, or she's looking for attention to her agenda by being as outrageous as she can be.

Whatever happened to having the parents train the kids in what's appropriate and moral, and allowing the teachers to teach!

[Wyzaard]

Wyz, why are you still arguing? It is so plainly obvious that it is NOT a good idea for little children to be stripping naked and "dancing" and "masturbating" and playing "doctor" and "exploring" each other in the classroom under "supervision" of a teacher.


This is hyperbole... what relation does this have with what the Norse teacher was stating?



Teachers are not there to be moral guides about what is the proper way to fondle your classmates. They are there to teach ABCs and 123s. Respect means don't force yourself on others or coerce them to "doing things" with you..

Which is what the teacher stated would be a part of her supervisory role: teaching mutual respect.

[Wyzaard]

As a teacher, I'd say about 50% of teaching today actually has to do with teaching students. Liberals want us to be parents, counselors and friends, conservatives want us to meet ridiculous standards, parents want teachers to hand kids a Harvard acceptance, and students are doing what they always do: push boundaries, forge identities, and rebel against authority. The problem is, with students doing what they've always done, we have liberals wanting to make excuses for it, and he have conservatives telling us it's our fault.

Fun, isn't it?

[Wyzaard]

Who lives in a parallel universe? Didn't you see Darth Executor's thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103383)?

Yep... and as per usual, it represents a distorted image of the real picture: that sexual abuse happens all across the spectrum of families, not just foster care.

[Wyzaard]

Pot meet Kettle.


I'm not the one using empty monikers bandied about by a conservative sex criminal.



I'm not the one that needs to make an apology for an uncompassionate Sick attack on someone on this forum.

I have already defended myself, and all other attempts to clarify my position were subsequentially erased.

I have no obligation to you or any other piece of right-wing filth who soils this board.

[Teallaura]

Well, nice to see Wyzaard hasn't lost his sense of humor.... :lolo:



Pity he just committed suicide... :popcorn:

[Teallaura]

I'm thinking in terms of No Child left Behind and Merit Pay, which by and large are endorsed by conservatives, both rate teachers by the students performance [although some merit pay programs do try to take individual student progress not just benchmark standards]. So if a student fails for any reason, responisbility falls on the teacher alone.
You raise a good point Bandie, but the thing is everyone else in the working world is judged by the quality of the product they put out, be it material, service or intellectual. A teacher's product is education - why should teachers be judged differently from everyone else?

I can understand allowances for student non-compliance (willful only) just as we make such allowances for physicians (it's your own fault if you don't do what the doctor said) but every time I hear a teacher complain about NCLB it invariably sounds like they don't want to be judged by their output at all. Teachers have one of the most important jobs in any modern society and just as we wouldn't give a free pass to some quack who miraculously managed to finish medical school we shouldn't give a free pass to someone because they got a degree in Education.

Something my band director in high school taught me (yes, long ago) - you can play note for note perfectly but it does no good if no one hears you. Similarly, a teacher can follow lesson plans to the T but what good did it do if the kids didn't learn? A teacher is paid to teach - not merely to communicate information. If the kids aren't learning and it's consistent with that school/teacher then something is rotten in Denmark. We pay good tax money for the services of public school teachers - they should be just as accountable as any other profession.

If NCLB needs revision then let's revise it. If the measures need valid adjustment, let's adjust them. But its whole purpose is accountability and that is the one thing that should not be changed. Unless you've got a better system that makes teachers accountable for the quality of their product calls for the repeal of NCLB are going to fall on deaf ears among conservatives - and a few liberals as well.

[Wyzaard]

Pity he just committed suicide... :popcorn:

(sniff, sniff)

:ahem:

If you're meaning that I'll be tossed from a board filled with fascists who ranted unrestrained about me being found and beaten up... really now, I lived in the US South, where double standards were the rule.

[RumTumTugger]

I'm not the one using empty monikers bandied about by a conservative sex criminal.

But you have no trouble parroting the bankrupt ideology of those who think that the values that made America great should be torn down in order to bring about a Utopia that is a fantasy; Or following their example as show on this forum of attacking your opponents in as uncaring and inhuman way as you can.


have already defended myself, and all other attempts to clarify my position were subsequentially erased.

You mean tried to excuse your utter lack of common human decency and compassion toward a person you are not fit to wipe the feet of, by blaming that person for your insensitive remark. Nope not going to get away with that.


I have no obligation to you or any other piece of right-wing filth who soils this board.

Who soils this board? hmm anyone want to make a guess? It isn't those of us who understand that freedom comes with responsibility and that part of being a human being is respecting those who disagree with us even if we don't agree with their Ideology, unless they show by their actions they they neither want nor deserve that respect.

You, Wyzaard feel we have to obligation to let you get away with being an insensitive uncaring inhuman total jackass because you didn't agree with what someone said when they showed you why your ideology doesn't' work the way you think it does. Well buddy it ain't going to happen.

You do owe someone an apology and if you don't like being reminded of it. Well don't let the door hit you on the way out while you go back under that rock you came from.

RTT

[Vigilante]

This is hyperbole... what relation does this have with what the Norse teacher was stating?
All those seem to have been mentioned in the article. But I haven't read it again since the first time. All those have been defended as OK in the classroom, in this thread.


Which is what the teacher stated would be a part of her supervisory role: teaching mutual respect.
As teachers always have. "Billy put your shirt up!" "Mary keep your legs together, you're in a dress!" "Jane, don't hold yourself there, do you have to potty?" "Jonny, don't slap behinds!"

Behave, don't "bother" each other, keep your clothes on, don't be crude. And thus, children respect each other's private space, and respect their own decency.

[Tfbandie]

You raise a good point Bandie, but the thing is everyone else in the working world is judged by the quality of the product they put out, be it material, service or intellectual. A teacher's product is education - why should teachers be judged differently from everyone else?

I can understand allowances for student non-compliance (willful only) just as we make such allowances for physicians (it's your own fault if you don't do what the doctor said) but every time I hear a teacher complain about NCLB it invariably sounds like they don't want to be judged by their output at all. Teachers have one of the most important jobs in any modern society and just as we wouldn't give a free pass to some quack who miraculously managed to finish medical school we shouldn't give a free pass to someone because they got a degree in Education.

Something my band director in high school taught me (yes, long ago) - you can play note for note perfectly but it does no good if no one hears you. Similarly, a teacher can follow lesson plans to the T but what good did it do if the kids didn't learn? A teacher is paid to teach - not merely to communicate information. If the kids aren't learning and it's consistent with that school/teacher then something is rotten in Denmark. We pay good tax money for the services of public school teachers - they should be just as accountable as any other profession.

If NCLB needs revision then let's revise it. If the measures need valid adjustment, let's adjust them. But its whole purpose is accountability and that is the one thing that should not be changed. Unless you've got a better system that makes teachers accountable for the quality of their product calls for the repeal of NCLB are going to fall on deaf ears among conservatives - and a few liberals as well.

It's purpose is good, but it is wholly unserviceable, much the same way it is unservicable to require doctors to cure 100% of their patients. In my honors classes every kid could pass the tests on the first day fo school: I could play checkers with them everyday, and get 100% passing rate and look like a model teacher under NCLB, But in my non honors classes, less than half could pass 8th grade, let alone 11th grade tests, and working hard all year should be lucky to get half to pass, which isn't good enough, and I would be a failing teacher.

Accountability's us a good thing, it's the impossible, rigid and broad nature that makes NCLB untenable. Even with the revisions which were very hard fought, it is impossible to expect success of this program:
Here's what i mean by impossible. under original law, every child must be at grade level. this included students moving into the country and students with disabilities. So if a student moves into your district from Japan, or Panama, 1 week before the test, they were expected to take it and pass it [in English] Now, they may take it in their native language for first three years, after which they must take the test in english.
Students with severe retardation were also included, students who were learning to tie their shoes or use forks in 11th grade because of their disabilities had to take same test. 1% of a school districts students could take alternative assesments based on disabilities. Now, after much fighting, it's up to 2 or 3%. (3 percent of population is mentally retarded)

Again, those specifics could be patched by many serious and deep cutting revisions, but overall point still remains, judging teachers on student performance without taking the students into account is a futile exercise.

Accountability can't come in an inflexible, federally mandated approach, it needs the localized areas focussing on the needs of the community. teachers should be judged by their principals, school boards and administrators, not some arbitrary line in the sand set by politicians in washington with no experience at all in schools. Accountability must be specific and made by those knowledgable of the classroom, the community and the students. The alternative is a forced mediocrity and shallow education.

The only part of NCLB which is not being enfored to the letter is the part where the givernment was to pay for it. As of 2005 there was a 27 billion dollar short in promised funding, or about 10 billion per year.

My suggestion, cut the whole thing and replace it with something giving local and state school boards more power to hold fair levels of accountability.

[Tfbandie]

**SNIP**

I'm very sorry for the rant Teal. It wasn't directed at you. :flowers:

Settling down a bit, I agree we need accountability, and I think most teachers would, it's jut that an NCLB style bill isn't the way to do it in my opinion.

For me, it needs to be local. I think Teacher's unions are too powerful in some places (as are unions in general) but I think many unions in general are starting to realize that protecting every member is a bad thing, and that there are some who need to get kicked out.

So accountability for teachers comes from principals and adminsitration within schools, and school boards and the community hold the schools accountable. I think a federal law giving more power to schools and communities to hold accountability [with some safeguards] would be more effective.

I do recognize that with state and federal money the muddies the water some about accountability

[Turgonian]

Yep... and as per usual, it represents a distorted image of the real picture: that sexual abuse happens all across the spectrum of families, not just foster care.
That's not the point, Wyzaard. Are you doing it on purpose? The point is that social services have shown themselves notoriously reluctant to 'oppress' homosexual and Black couples. The reaction of the social services is what is at issue here.


I have no obligation to you or any other piece of right-wing filth who soils this board.
No, and Christopher Hitchens, the ex-Marxist, currently advocates genocide in the Middle East.

Silly utopians... They always end up utterly hating their opponents.

[Wyzaard]

But you have no trouble parroting the bankrupt ideology of those who think that the values that made America great should be torn down in order to bring about a Utopia that is a fantasy;

Erm... Who are you talking about?



You mean tried to excuse your utter lack of common human decency and compassion toward a person you are not fit to wipe the feet of, by blaming that person for your insensitive remark.

I was in the right... I wasn't tactful about it, but I am still in the right in regards to the core issue that was/is at hand.



Who soils this board?

Inequality-worshipping right-wingers wallowing in their ignorance and hate?



It isn't those of us who understand that freedom comes with responsibility

Ahhh... more O'rally talking points...



and that part of being a human being is respecting those who disagree with us even if we don't agree with their Ideology, unless they show by their actions they they neither want nor deserve that respect.

Ok... so when did I deviate from this ethic? I think many of you don't deserve my respect, as your thoughts/actions adversely effect others.



You, Wyzaard feel we have to obligation to let you get away with being an insensitive uncaring inhuman total jackass

I likewise have an obligation to return the favor.

(Oh, and no one thus far has shown how my 'ideology' "doesn't work", nice try)



You do owe someone an apology


No, I don't... particularly after your right-wing witch hunt.

[Wyzaard]

The point is that social services have shown themselves notoriously reluctant to 'oppress' homosexual and Black couples. The reaction of the social services is what is at issue here.

And all you have is ONE anecdote... whereas where I grew up, children were put into the foster care system because the parents were gay.



No, and Christopher Hitchens, the ex-Marxist, currently advocates genocide in the Middle East.


Emphasis on 'ex'.

[Turgonian]

And all you have is ONE anecdote... whereas where I grew up, children were put into the foster care system because the parents were gay.
Three anecdotes, actually, if you would have read the thread: one about homosexuals, two about Blacks.
And how do homosexual people get children in the first place?



No, and Christopher Hitchens, the ex-Marxist, currently advocates genocide in the Middle East.
Emphasis on 'ex'.
He's not an ex-atheist, though.

:whistle:

[Turgonian]

Oh, and besides (http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_enemy_of_my_enemies/)...

Take Mr. Hitchens. He is no friend of conservatives (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1341.htm). Everyone knows that. Hitchens’ ideological overlap with what he calls “right-wingers” barely extends beyond “the single issue of fighting Islamic jihadism”, as Hitchens breezily observed in last month’s Vanity Fair.

[Wyzaard]

And how do homosexual people get children in the first place?


Adoption, surrogate, or prior marriages.



He's not an ex-atheist, though.


And that's relevant because...? When I speak of conservatism, I place primary emphasis on their medieval economic foundations, not their wedge-issue distractions.

[Turgonian]

I assume those 'wedge-issue distractions', which you refer to, concern those political battlegrounds where conservatives try to serve God instead of Mammon?

[gharfish]

Aw, this thread has gone to eating paste. Let it die, Wyzaard. Civics ! Uugh. :eww:

[Wyzaard]

I assume those 'wedge-issue distractions', which you refer to, concern those political battlegrounds where conservatives try to serve God instead of Mammon?

No... they serve mammon regardless; but to keep the masses of the conservative underclasses distracted from how badly they are being bled by conservative economic policies, social wedge issues are used as potent, but ultimately pointless carrots.