This Brings a Whole New Meaning to the Word Sexting// do you know who’s texting your child?

teen_sexting

Text messages: Enabling privacy for sex ed

As if parents don’t have enough to worry about these days, now states are sending sexually explicit text messages straight to your kid’s cell phone. So the cute football player is not allowed to send sex messages to your teenage girl, but the state can? Interesting….

Here’s just another way the government is trying to take control of America’s children and deprive parents of their rights to parent and teach their children according to their beliefs. Check this out:

“If you take a shower before you have sex, are you less likely to get pregnant?” asks one.

Another: “Does a normal penis have wrinkles?”

A young girl types: “If my BF doesn’t like me to be loud during sex but I can’t help it, what am I supposed to do?”

Within 24 hours, each will receive a cautious, nonjudgmental reply, texted directly to their cellphones, from a nameless, faceless adult at the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Campaign of North Carolina, based in Durham.

And might I interject, with out the knowledge, or consent of these kids’ parents.

A few universities and hospitals set up blunt Web sites for young people, like Columbia’s Go Ask Alice! and Atlantic Health’s TeenHealthFX.com, allowing them to post questions online. More recently, researchers have explored how to reach teenagers through social networking sites like MySpace and YouTube.

Now, health experts say, intimate, private and crucial information can be delivered to teenagers on the device that holds millions captive: their cellphones.

Programs in Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Toronto and San Francisco allow young people to text a number, select from a menu of frequently asked questions (“What 2 do if the condom broke”) and receive automated replies, with addresses of free clinics. Last month, California started HookUp 365247, a statewide text-messaging service. The texter can type a ZIP code and get a local clinic referral, as well as weekly health tips.

And here goes their argument:

“Technology reduces the shame and embarrassment,” said Deb Levine, executive director of ISIS, a nonprofit organization that began many technology-based reproductive health programs. “It’s the perceived privacy that people have when they’re typing into a computer or a cellphone. And it’s culturally appropriate for young people: they don’t learn about this from adults lecturing them.”

Oh really? They think that children shouldn’t learn about sex from their parents? Why do they assume it’s always “from adults lecturing them.” First of all, from a responsible and concerned parents, it probably wouldn’t be a lecture. It is imperative and also appropriate for a parent to teach their child about sex in the home, and to teach them that sex has a place only with in the bonds of marriage. Parents don’t need the state’s agenda, disguised as helpful and responsible sex education, to undermine their efforts and authority when it comes to teaching their own children. For the unfortunate kids who don’t have conscientious and responsible parents, they know how to use the internet and the library, if they want privacy concerning their sex questions. They know where to get the info. Parent’s don’t need the state marketing sex to, and teaching, their children.

That lack of oversight is what galls Bill Brooks, president of the North Carolina Family Policy Council. “If I couldn’t control access to this information, I’d turn off the texting service,” he said. “When it comes to the Internet, parents are advised to put blockers on their computer and keep it in a central place in the home. But kids can have access to this on their cellphones when they’re away from parental influence — and it can’t be controlled.”

Just what the states want, an avenue to contact your children, indoctrinate them, and do it all behind your back. Clever. We have the ACLU or some other crazed organization to thank for the fact that people can access porn on public library computers, so if kids want unfiltered sex-ed info, they can also get it there, out of their parents control.

While some would argue that such programs augment what students learn in health class, Mr. Brooks believes that they circumvent an abstinence-until-marriage curriculum. “It doesn’t make sense to fund a program that is different than the state standards,” he said. (The State Legislature is now considering a bill permitting comprehensive sex education.)

I think these texting programs are offensive and completely unnecessary. If the states wanted to be so involved in a responsible sex education program, then they should focus more on the basics in classroom sex-ed, and less on gay day, homosexual and gender issues and everything else the GLBT community has gotten them to teach. It seems that public school sex ed programs have gotten so far off track that these kids are left with so  many questions, basic sex education questions that could easily be answered in a decent sex-ed program.

What’s wrong with caring teachers being allowed to really teach biology,  and parents being able to teach their own children without being sidelined by the state? Real teaching and parenting has done the trick for hundreds of years. I remember my high school biology class, and our reproductive unit. We had the coolest biology teacher, and one of the best, if not the best, teachers in the entire school. We knew she cared about us and she really wanted us to learn. She is an amazing teacher! After our reproduction/sex-ed unit, she devoted an entire class to our questions. Students got to write them down anonymously and put them in a box. She pulled them out and answered them. I still to this day remember some of the things she said in class that day. Thanks Miss O’Brien!

Although as disgusting as this government-advocated-sexting is, unfortunately it’s probably not any worse then the homosexuality,  gay days and other trash that is taught in public schools these days.  These texting programs are just more private, but their intent to indoctrinate and undermine parents is the same. Sounds like the states are just adding to their repertoire. {Click here to read the entire NY Times article}

What do you all make of this? How would you feel if these were your kids? What else don’t you know about your kids? Let’s hope that these state-employed-so-called-sex-educator-texters aren’t actually pedophiles in disguise…..

Thanks for reading. Comments are always welcome!

{p.s.} I am aware that the current definition of “sexting” doesn’t exactly include government forced sex-ed, however, doesn’t it seem like they are trying to get in on the action too?

Sources: NYtimes.com, mobilehealthnews.com

Advertisements

Do You Want Your Kindergartner Learning About and Engaging in Sexual Activity// the u.k. government doesn’t have a problem with it

Parents Shouldn’t Tell Kids What’s Right or Wrong about Having Sex says a U.K. Gov’t Pamphlet

They also announce mandatory sex education for kindergartners. The U.K. Government wants parents to bow to their wishes and let children, the younger the better, learn about and participate in sexual activities and accumulate contraceptives. The government has completely disregarded all parental rights, religious beliefs and basic morality with this new plan of theirs. If we’re not careful, this could happen here to us in the USA. It’s already on it’s way as evidenced by recent US sex ed news. Look out parents!

{Read the entire article here…}

The Great Sex-Ed Debate:// Whatever will the Fremont School Board do?

Public school sex education is a huge deal. I don’t think that most parents realize how huge of a deal it is. Maybe if they knew exactly what propaganda and agendas are being taught to their children, they might perk up and pay attention, but then again, maybe not.

Fremont School Board members met last night 01/14, to adopt a new sex education program, after learning last year that their current junior high program was not compliant with California state law.

There have been rumblings that some trustees might be considering removing sex education altogether from the junior high schools.

I say that if they don’t have a decent program, if they want to promote the gay lifestyle and same-sex attraction, then go ahead, loose the program all together. It would likely be in the best interest of the children anyway. I say, have an optional program, maybe several evening seminars over several weeks, where parents could attend with their children, or come alone to learn how to talk to their children about sex, while still being able to preserve their value system by teaching their children at home. Oh wait, the bureaucrats in charge of the public school system do not care about anyone’s value system. I guess it’s nice in theory.

School districts are not required to provide sex education. But those that do are mandated to offer a comprehensive curriculum, meaning that the use of condoms and birth control must be taught in addition to abstinence [and as we have all heard, more and more SSA is being taught and promoted in these public school sex-ed programs].

The school board has reviewed two possible new curricula that are up for possible adoption — one called “FLASH” and another called “Teen Talk”.

Teen Talk was developed by the Teen Pregnancy Coalition of San Mateo County and is used in many Peninsula schools.  7/8 F.L.A.S.H. was developed by the Seattle–King County Department of Public Health and is used throughout the country.

These programs start as early as 4th grade teaching children about HIV. I am stunned and appalled. My husband and I have a 5th grader, and I don’t think that children this young need to be taught about sex as explicitly as these programs teach it, and I certainly don’t think they have a need for HIV info either. Tell them about puberty and teach them from a scientific and medical standpoint about the changes that will occur in their bodies, but HIV. . .? I also find it very strange that in these programs, the STD and HIV lessons are at the bottom. After they have talked to the kids about “touching,” “sexual exploitation,” “gender identification” and “sexual health and hygiene” then they will tell them, well you could get a disease. This is beyond ridiculous. I am so shocked by these programs, that I might just do a little critique of them tomorrow.

This week, several people from the health and sex education advisory committee or the American Civil Liberties Union, which advocates for reproductive rights, said individuals who support an abstinence-only curriculum have been contacting school board members and asking them to do away with sex education.

As reported by the ACLU,

California law states that sex education in public schools must be science-based, free of bias, and include medically accurate, age-appropriate information about abstinence, condoms and contraception in grades 7-12.  California schools may not use “abstinence-only” curricula.

Of course not. That would be leaving too many rights to the parents, if abstinence-only were to be taught. Then they would be able to teach their children what they wanted them to know. Wake up parents! What your children are being taught about sex in school is very much an infringement on your parental rights.

A huge round of applause for these parents who are obviously involved in their children’s education and care about what they are being taught. For those parents on the other side of the fence, who think that their children need a “comprehensive sex ed program,” the ACLU has so graciously offered a form letter that you can sign your name to and email out to the board directly from their website. The ACLU does not need to be involved in advising a school board on their sex-ed program. Do people really believe that a 4th graders sex education falls under the civil rights category? I see it as a gross infringement on that child’s parent’s civil rights. Here’s what the letter says:

Dear [Decision Maker],

As a Fremont community member, I am writing to ask you to follow through on your commitment to the parents and students of FUSD by adopting a medically accurate, comprehensive sex education curriculum for middle school at your meeting on January 14th. The two comprehensive curricula proposed for adoption meet state requirements and have been evaluated and recommended by teachers and the district’s advisory committee.

Comprehensive sex education that includes age-appropriate, accurate information about condoms and contraception as well as abstinence is effective. Students who receive comprehensive sex education are 50% less likely to become pregnant as students who receive abstinence-only education and 60% less likely to become pregnant as those who receive no sex education at all.

At a time when one in four teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease, according to the CDC, young people more than ever need accurate, responsible information about their sexual health.

I urge you to provide FUSD middle school students with the comprehensive sex education that they deserve and the law requires.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Trustee Ivy Wu, who has been bombarded with emails, advises her children to obstain from premarital sex, however,

“I know that as a board member, I cannot impose my own personal beliefs on other people. … I also understand that there are kids who are already sexually active. For these kids, … they need to know the right way to protect themselves.”

Why not? The school district does. They impose their beliefs on other people’s children all the time. Too bad Trustee Wu didn’t push a little harder for them to do away with sex ed all together. These kids don’t need Fremont school district to teach them about sex. They already know, and if they already know, then they are likely getting their sex-ed from MTV, or hopefully, and more appropriately, their parents, which would trump anything Fremont would say. Those kids watch more MTV (or sex-TV as it should be called) than spend time in any public school sex-ed class. MTV promotes safe sex, so there, problem solved, right?

sex-ed-1No school board member contacted said they wanted to do away with sex-ed completely, but they do have some concerns about the two curricula being considered.
Read the Rest Here