Conference back40::soapbox

>	How many had their parents tell them about sex BEFORE they ever had it?

  <raises hand>

>	How many can say what they were told ended up being reality and don't
>	laugh about it now?

  <keeps hand up>

>	How many people can say if they were told about sex, that it was in a
>	serious atmosphere?

  <keeps hand up>


>	What were you told about sex?

  <puts hand down, blushes>

        I'll tell all - my first "heavy" date - leaving the house, aged
        about 14, my  father  handed  me  a  half-crown and said, and I
        quote; "Be careful"!
        
        That's all folks! :^)
        
        Andy
        

I was told zip by my parents. By the time they got enough courage to
approach me, I already figured out what was what.

    > How many had their parents tell them about sex BEFORE they ever had it?

    <raises hand>

    > How many can say what they were told ended up being reality and don't
    > laugh about it now?

    <keeps hand up>

    > How many people can say if they were told about sex, that it was in a
    > serious atmosphere?
    
    <keeps hand up>

    > What were you told about sex?

    that it is natural and nothing to be ashamed of.  i was provided with
    the requisite medical information and the requisite cautions and was
    told not to be afraid to ask for more information should i want it.

    
    
    	
    
    	for me.....  ditto .4    
    	
    
    	JJ
    

    
    ...Di 8^)!
    
    Me, yes to all three questions.
    
    
    >What were you told about sex?

    Once we got past the original story that "God knows when you get
    married and sends you a baby" I got the rudiments of intercourse & ova
    but my mother never mentioned sperm.  Therefore it took me quite some 
    time before I realized that one couldn't get pregnant from tampons 8^).
    
    Also, my sister and I agreed after our little talk that sex sounded
    absolutely disgusting and there was no way we were EVER going to do
    ANYTHING like THAT.
         

	My parents were lucky, in that their public school system
	did the dirty work.

	A very fact-based, medically-oriented basic course given in
	5th grade.  The dicey stuff was in junior high, with hormone-
	charged adolescents attending "Health" class.

	I've tried to remember how the subject was presented when
	I was 11, so I can modify it for a 1st grader now!

	Explaining "here's what sex is" isn't inordinately tough for
	me.  Explaining "here's how to deal with it" is!!!!!

    At my Catholic High School, the senior "marriage" course was taught by
    a priest who, one would assume had limited practical knowledge. One
    day, he opened the class by writing the words "Oral Sex" in huge
    letters on the board. Needless to say, that got our attention.
    
    It went downhill quickly though when all he did was explain to us that
    the church said we couldn't have any... well, not exactly. He did
    explain that we could but... well. The check's in the mail.
    
    -b

	was 11, doing a book report on commerce and trade, when i asked
	the town librarian what "intercourse" was (as in intercourse
	between nations).  she went and got the head librarian, they both
	stared at me for a few seconds, then she said:

	"That's something you should ask your mother."

	
	....hunh?

    
    I learned about sex WAY before I ever had it, many years.  My
    parents also tried to explain it to me (before I'd had it),
    but I cut in and explained what I knew.  Girls develop sooner
    than boys, and I was late to have great interest.  Didn't hurt
    me a bit, later.  I knew instinctively there was no rush, and
    was right. Today's kids would probably not believe me if I told
    them how old I was before desire really developed.
    
      bb

    Well mine's a horror story... won't get into it. But when I was about 6
    I asked my grandma how babies came out??
    
    And she replied..
    
    
    "Whale, Naincy [suthern drawl] they come out the same way they go in!"
    
    
    
    

    As a parent, I have an incredibly open relationship with my boys
    regarding the facts of life.
    
    My oldest constantly amazes me with his frank and candid discussion of
    male puberty issues.  I've never laughed so hard in my laugh... of
    course we laughed together.
    
    These spontaneous out-of-control-male-er-uhm-uprisings have created
    some humorous predicaments for this guy.  Thank goodness he laughs at
    himself.
    
    Nancy

    Mom explained sex and the connection with babies,  oh from about the
    time I was 6 and she was raising siamese cats.  Because of some of the
    recessives that run with siameses, I also wound up getting an education
    about nymphmania, rape, impotence and homosexuality.
    
    I was also given the spiel that her mother had given her, in that men
    have NO control over themselves (highly degrading to men IMO), and that
    it was up to you to conduct yourself in a way so as not to inflame one.  
    This was also in direct conflict with the other lecture that went
    something to the fact that humans can control themselves and it is what
    makes us different from other animals.  
    
    by 1971 mom was sharing letters she wrote to congresscritters asking
    that the restrictive abortion laws in this country be relaxed.  
    
    meg

    I was told to watch Bugs Bunny.
    
    What troubled me was Bugs was always dressing up like a girl.

    .14
    
    huh????????????
    
    

>    I knew instinctively there was no rush, and
>    was right. 
    
    	Wait a minute.  I thought that Rush was real.  I saw him on
    	TV.  Really!  And I've heard that "Rush is Right", so at 
    	least the last part of your statement was correct...

   Re: Penuts::DDesmaisons
    
   >>         was 11, doing a book report on commerce and trade, when i asked
   >>         the town librarian what "intercourse" was (as in intercourse
   >>         between nations).  she went and got the head librarian, they
   >>         both stared at me for a few seconds, then she said:
    
   >>         "That's something you should ask your mother."
    
    That was you??!!!!

>	How many had their parents tell them about sex BEFORE they ever had it?

	me.
    
>	How many can say what they were told ended up being reality and don't
>	laugh about it now?

	It turns out that I was told a subset of the whole, and I am truly
    	grateful that they didn't spoil the ending of the movie!  In 
    	addition, some other wonderful surprises were also left for me
    	to discover, for which I shall be ever grateful.  Perhaps there
    	are still more gems that I haven't found!
    
>	How many people can say if they were told about sex, that it was in a
>	serious atmosphere?

	me.

>	What were you told about sex?

	Enough, and not too much.
    
    	And what makes me especially glad is that my wife was told the
    	same thing on one point -- that one's virginity is a gift that
    	can only be given once, and that one should save it for his/her
    	marriage partner.  So we could each see the other's virginity
    	as the gift that it truly was.

    
    
    i can't honestly say that i can remember my parents actually explaining
    the birds and the bees to me, but i know my father always answered any
    questions i had.
    
    i, too, got the basic low-down in 5th grade.  our public schools had a
    class once a week or so for about a semester.  and then dad and his
    second wife (and my friends) filled in the blanks.  'course i didn't
    need any of the info til many moons later...but no one ever told me
    that you had to protect your heart as well...
    
    

    .19
    
    If a man was telling about it... no wonder they didn't tell you to
    protect your  heart! [ducking]
    
    :-)
    
    

               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-

	How many had their parents tell them about sex BEFORE they ever had it?

        Me too.
    
	How many can say what they were told ended up being reality and don't
	laugh about it now?

        I got just the Medical facts. Mom left it for me to figure out the
    	rest.
    
	How many people can say if they were told about sex, that it was in a
	serious atmosphere?

        Again Me
    
optional:

	What were you told about sex?

    
        See above
    
    
         					Steve R.

    
    
    
    	All these stories remind me, that this isn't done in one sitting
    	at one specific age.
    
        But the bulk of the information was taught in Public school fourth or
    	fifth grade prompting discussion at home.
    
    

| <<< Note 139.14 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "G��� �t�R �r�z�" >>>

| I was told to watch Bugs Bunny.
| What troubled me was Bugs was always dressing up like a girl.

	So that's where you got the dropping of the pants from. Glenn, Bugs
always dropped the OTHER person's pants, not his own!

    <- Ahh, but Uncle Milty was the king! (re, queen?)
    
       Chip

>How many had their parents tell them about sex BEFORE they ever had it?

<raises hand>

>	How many can say what they were told ended up being reality and don't
>	laugh about it now?

  <keeps hand up>

>	How many people can say if they were told about sex, that it was in a
>	serious atmosphere?

  <keeps hand up>

>	What were you told about sex?

Dad expected me to be a lady-killer...Mom said quaint things like
"don't roll in the hay with every passing butt", along with other more
objective biological details. 

Both expected not to be grandparents before I finished college.

    
        My parents never told me anything. 
    
        Here's something I can laugh about now. When I was about 12 
    years old I asked my mother "What is oral sex?"
    
        Boy, did she get mad. Said only "filthly pigs" asked questions like
    that. So I looked it up in the dictionary. I couldn't find "oral sex"
    so I looked up "oral" and "sex"... Well, I thought I figured it out
    then. I said to myself, "Oh yeah, she hates talking about sex, no
    wonder she got so mad.!"
    
         Rosie 

    re.0
    
    I can't remember it all that well, but this part locked itself into my 
    automatic recall.
    
    Son it would be better for to you to wait until you get married, but if 
    your going to do it.  Take precautions, and be responsible.  That's
    when I was given a condom (A licenses to use my weapon). 
    
    
    

Geeziz - I never thought I'd miss Malerheum this much . . . 

>	How many had their parents tell them about sex BEFORE they ever had it?

  <raises hand>

>	How many can say what they were told ended up being reality and don't
>	laugh about it now?

  <keeps hand up>

>	How many people can say if they were told about sex, that it was in a
>	serious atmosphere?

  <keeps hand up>


>	What were you told about sex?

  <keeps hand up>

	A lot. In fact I asked a lot of questions, all of which got an
	objective and proper answer.




	Only "detail" I can remember is my mother telling me that having 
	fun was OK, "but don't you ever bring me a baby !"

	Parents are funny, you know... Later she kept asking me for about ten years
	when I would finally give her the grandchildren she was dreaming of...

    re. 28
    
    Come on, it's not that bad.  Who is Malereun? 
     
    Why do you miss Him or her ?
    
    Just curious.

	I think they are having MailRoom withdrawal symptoms Kimball.

    The basic biological information (reproduction) was given to me when I
    was about 6 or 7.  My parents found this really sweet book about making
    babies, and gave me that to read, then asked if I had any questions. 
    The book was pretty specific about reproduction itself, but it didn't
    go into exactly what "making love" meant or exactly how the
    all-important sperm got out of the male and into the female.
    
    I got the rest when I was about 12, first from my mom (very clinical
    explanation of sex), then from my older (5.5 years older) brother (more
    detailed and less intimidating explanation).  Neither one of them ever
    bothered to explain just how much the first time might hurt! :)  Sigh.
    
    M.
    

    my parents didn't talk to us about the birds and the bees at all. at
    16, i "fell in love" with a 15 year old girl. and for the next couple
    of years we just sorta figured it out ourselves. i can't remember us
    having much in the way of "bad" times. neither of us had expectations,
    just a lot of interest and a willingness to learn and experiment. then
    along came high school graduation and shortly after that, the draft. we
    drifted apart and went our separate ways shortly before i was shipped
    to SE Asia. we remain friends today tho we don't write or talk much
    anymore. i sorta write if off to blissful youth in the 60's.
    
    she's got 5 kids these days. guess i got outta there just in time.

    I learned it the same way as Haag and remember it as a great experience
    and still remember it fondly almost 30years later. Everything else I
    learned on the street. My father wasn't much for talking about it. I
    remember him trying, when I was about 17. I informed him that it was a
    little late. His reply was "Great". I didn't make the same mistake with
    my boys.
    
    ...Tom

    ummm Gene, I presume none of her 5 children have an affinity for
    sheep? 
    
    

    Um, what's it like?  You know, er, um, the last word in the topic. 
    What's it like?  
    
    Brian

	Brian, it's like sailing with a wonderful boat, great winds
and cold beer.......%^)

Note 139.35 by DECLNE::REESE 
    
    >ummm Gene, I presume none of her 5 children have an affinity for
    >sheep? 
    
    i was in either thialand or laos when i first heard she was pregnant
    with her first. that was two years after i last seen her. however, i
    must have left a lasting impression for she actually did marry a guy
    who raises LOTS of sheep and some cattle and live out in the sticks
    about 40 miles south of morristown, sd.
    

    .29:
    
�  Parents are funny, you know... Later she kept asking me for about ten years
�  when I would finally give her the grandchildren she was dreaming of...
    
    I know a fellow who's mother used to do that to him too.
    She stopped when he said "Well, Mom, for all I know, you may already
    have one!"
    
    re .0:
    
    I wish I could recall what my folks have had to say.  What I do recall
    is beating them to the punch, quite by accident, whilst perusing the
    encyclopedia...
    
    Dick

| <<< Note 139.40 by VMSSG::LYCEUM::CURTIS "Dick "Aristotle" Curtis" >>>


| -< You never know WHAT you can find in a good encyclopedia >-



	You were reading the pigmi's, weren't you....

    Regarding "street learning" of sex.
    
    The problem I have with hormone driven experimental sex with anyone but
    your life long partner [wife/husband] is that sex becomes a tool for
    pleasure versus an emotional sexual bonding between two people.
    
    It took me years to understand the difference between the two... they
    were so closely related and so similar.  Making love is what we called
    it in the 60's and 70's... but having sex is what it really was... just
    going for the pleasure, the orgasm, if you will.
    
    It wasn't until I truly loved someone that I discovered the
    difference... the power, the bonding, the joy that turned sex into a
    truly sensual, spiritual experience.
    
    

    Hormonally fueled experimentation does not negate the ability of one to 
    develop strong emotional bonds in conjunction with sex.  If anything, 
    when one realizes sex may have little meaning by itself or the
    experience is somehow incomplete without the attachment, there is a very 
    large lesson learned (IMO).  Unfortunately, not everyone learns that at 
    the same time, and some never do.  It is a part of learning about oneself
    though (IMO).  Adolescent exeperimentation does not exclude emotional 
    bonding.  If anything, it might actually help some become better adjusted 
    and feel more comfortable with themselves and possibly not be quite so 
    hung up on things especially if they are able to shed the irrational guilt 
    surrounding the same.   
    
    Brian

    .43
    
    No it doesn't negate... but it sets up for sexual addiction.  The drug
    of the orgasm is no different then snorting cocaine for many.
    
    

    
    .42
    
    Nancy, your note refers to one's "life long partner".  Can you only
    bond with one person?  What if said "life long partner" isn't?  S/he
    dies, you get divorced, bla bla bla.

    .45
    
    No Deb.. I'm not saying that you cannot have more than one committed
    relationship in which love transcends into emotional sexual bonding. 
    However, I do believe that it's rare.
    
    For me, if I ever do remarry, I pray that I'm wrong on this... but I
    doubt seriously whether I'll ever experience that oneness as I
    experienced with a man that I truly loved deeply from the inner
    woman... the soul, if you will.
    
    Perhaps, it just *seems* like a once in a lifetime experience ...
    
    But - when the orgasm changes into something almost outside the body,
    you cannot explain it.. only if you've been there.  And the most
    wonderful thing is that it's no longer sexually fulfilling, but fills
    your entire body, soul and mind....  
    
    Oh well, who knows, again, I pray I'm wrong.
    
   "But with God all things are possible"... :-) :-) :-)
    
    eh?
    
    Nancy

    Sexual addiction?  I would like to see any statistics supporting this 
    supposition.  I will make a counter unsubstantiated claim that the 
    opposite occurs.  Suppressing natural urges early on leads to sexual 
    addicition in later years.  In reality, I don't believe ther is a 
    correlation either way though I'd be more likley to believe the latter 
    is true.  
    
    Brian

    .47
    
    I happen to know it to be true for many folks... you may not *like* it,
    but I can't change what I *know*.  If you want to know how I know
    you can write me offline.  And before folks get any ideas its not
    wellllllll, just don't! :-)

    <- Your personal experience falls far short of medical/scientific
       fact.
    
       No Sale.
    
       Chip

    Nancy,
    
    I do not doubt that you may know an instance or instances where this 
    occurred.  I do doubt the validity of the general statement that early 
    experimentation leads to sexual addiction.  It has nothing to do with
    liking it, your observation that is :-).  
    
    Brian

    .49
    
    I agree - now what?
    
    .50
    
    I agree - now what! :-)  I never said that it leads to, I said it *can*
    lead to... re-read.
    
    

    <- Better remove the "can". You see, we don't agree.
    
    Chip

    Nancy, your reply is as follows.  Please help me find the word "can" in
    the following.  I read it as a general statement.  
    
    Brian
    
    >    .43
    >
    >    No it doesn't negate... but it sets up for sexual addiction.  The
    >	 drug of the orgasm is no different then snorting cocaine for many.
     

    .43
    
    You are right.. .it was not in there.. oops.. well the "sets up" was to
    imply *could lead to*.  I see where it could be taken as an absolute
    statement.  
    
    Sorry for the lack of clarity.

    Chip,
    
    Again, my mistake... you are correct, it's not the "early or late" of
    it, it's the attitude behind the sexuality that creates an environment
    for addiction.
    
    

    <- I wouldn't rule out predisposition or chemical imbalance either.
    
       After all, the latter is what "kicks us off" so to speak...
    
       Chip

    .56
    
    OH BOY!!!  That PREDISPOSITION OF CHEMICAL STUFF really fries my
    potatoes... I have been predispositioned to mass murder, to rape, to
    sodomize and to just be rude!
    
    Sorry but that is balderdash!!

    <- Hardly my dear... As DNA code continues to be cracked and analysis
       of chemical imbalances and their effects on physical and psycho-
       logical behavior continue to be understood it is becoming more and
       more evident that undeniable foundation for these positions are
       being discovered. In other words, scientific proof. It's not to
       say other causes or influences don't exist.
    
       I understand this flies in the face of religious beliefs and all,
       but seriously, Nancy, do some reading.
    
       Psychology was my major and I've never been hospitalized in spite
       of being raised a Catholic... :-)
    
      Chip
      
    

    .58
    
    Chip,
    
    I have done some reading.. and I understand that we now think we can
    define all behavior through chemical impulses in the brain...
    
    I don't agree with it completely...  I have written in the previous
    version of SOAPBOX my *thoughts* regarding this.
    
    Here is an excerpt:
    

The following scripture from Romans Chapter 1 is the best I can give you, 
these are not my words, but words from a Holy Book, not matter how challanged 
that book is, it is Holy.

 21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
     neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their 
     foolish heart was darkened.
 22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
 23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made
     like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
     creeping things.
 24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
     their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
 25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
     the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
 26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
     their women did change the natural use into that which is against
      nature:
 27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
     burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
     which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
     their error which was meet.
 28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
     gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
     convenient;

The last verse here states that God gave them over to a reprobate mind. Not 
only does the Bible say this, but also in modern psychology it has been 
determined that we are what we *think* we are.  

We know that the brain emits chemicals that are essential to the 
functionality of the brain.  You may call this a long shot in theory, and 
I'll even admit to it... but let me speculate when God withdraws himself from 
man and gives one over, in essence, to a reprobate mind, the mind has been 
now left on its own to emit and emote that which it chooses without the 
concious of God... eternal consequences.  I am not very surprised to find 
that chemicals are missing that were once essential to regulate behavior 
impulses in the brain.  

The mind, the brain is an intricate organ in the body that all the science in 
the world and all the modern technology that we have to explore the brain, 
cannot explain all that is there and all that is not being used.  Therefore, 
it makes it entirely possible that the above is a possibility.

    
    But that opens up the whole arena of "born this way".  
    
    My thoughts as read in textbook but also from experience that early
    childhood development tells us that children though innocent in from
    many prejudices,  for the most part, are not without their social and 
    moral skills needing to be trained.  
    
Children lie, are selfish, and oftimes have very hostile behavior, such as 
biting, kicking, and fighting.  Children go through puberty, and I've heard 
said that most men have male to male sexual experiences during puberty.  If 
that experience is pleasurable, it can become something that is thought, 
dwelt upon until the thought becomes a desire and now what was an experience 
becomes an emotional, spiritual and physical need.  But it started in the 
mind.

    
    

	Nancy, I read that and couldn't help to laugh. Wouldn't that mean that
anytime we did something you perceived to be wrong, that there isn't a physical
possibility for it? My friend was always down in the dumps, quitting jobs and
such. Turns out he had a chemical imbalance of the brain. Did you ever stop and
think that God might have allowed us to see this? That every opportunity we
have with medical science is God showing us what to do? 


Glen

    .60
    
    Glen,
    
    Glad I could entertain you.

    I understand (and respect) where you're coming from. I think we even
    agree that a mulititude of variables (aside from physical) are always 
    at work shaping an individual. 
    
    I'll admit to being a Christian (but certainly not in the same league
    as you - and that's not a slam). Clearly, my faith (blind or otherwise)
    is not as strong. So consequently, questions run amuck.
    
    I do take Glen's position in this matter. The simple fact that we 
    have the ability and continue to discover and learn the cosmos'
    secrets should conclude that it was meant to be (by God's hand) that
    the human race grow through its knowledge. Certainly, nothing in the
    bible denounces man's quest for knowledge and self-betterment.
    
    I think it's great that your faith is in the forefront of your life.
    However, I don't think any of us should limit the possibilities that
    drive that life. We'll atrophy.
    
    Chip

	Chip, good note. :-)

Note 139.62                      Parents and sex                        62 of 63
WMOIS::GIROUARD_C                                    19 lines  14-DEC-1994 06:05

>    I understand (and respect) where you're coming from. I think we even
>    agree that a mulititude of variables (aside from physical) are always 
>    at work shaping an individual. 

Yes, we do agree.
    
>    I'll admit to being a Christian (but certainly not in the same league
>    as you - and that's not a slam). Clearly, my faith (blind or otherwise)
>    is not as strong. So consequently, questions run amuck.

I almost chuckle at this one.. thanks for the compliment.  I do admit to 
it being startling to see this said though.
    
>    I do take Glen's position in this matter. The simple fact that we 
>    have the ability and continue to discover and learn the cosmos'
>    secrets should conclude that it was meant to be (by God's hand) that
>    the human race grow through its knowledge. Certainly, nothing in the
>    bible denounces man's quest for knowledge and self-betterment.

I'm careful of human wisdoms and reasonings... 
    
>    I think it's great that your faith is in the forefront of your life.
>    However, I don't think any of us should limit the possibilities that
>    drive that life. We'll atrophy.
    
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.  How do you believe that I 
am or could limit possibilities?

BTW, I'm far from atrophying... :-) :-)
    

    Nancy, I didn't mean to say that you are limiting - In fact, I think
    I stated the opposite (actually)...
    
    Startling that admitted to be a Christian or startled that I'd admit
    not being on the top of the heap?  :-)
    
    Oh, on atrophying... I can't tell from here... :-)
    
    Chip

    >Nancy, I didn't mean to say that you are limiting - In fact, I think
    >I stated the opposite (actually)...
    
    Thanks.. 'tweren't sure. 
    
    >Startling that admitted to be a Christian or startled that I'd
    >admit not being on the top of the heap?  :-)
    
    Uh, well, uhm... neither.  Startling to hear you call me a strong
    Christian... you see I spent 8 years hiding from God, although a
    Christian...it's GREAT, but startling.
    
    >Oh, on atrophying... I can't tell from here... :-)
    
    TeeeeRUST me :-)

| <<< Note 139.64 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I'm careful of human wisdoms and reasonings...

	Many humans may do just that. But even if they do, does that negate
where it actually came from? I guess from your words I got the impression that
if a human says this or that, then it was a human's thoughts, wisdom. Is this
true?



Glen

    I check it against the Bible Glen.. period.

	Yeah Nancy, the Bible has often talked about the discoveries of
today...

There's hidden messages in the bibble that can be applied to any sityooashun.
Them fellers on the teevee do it all the time.

| <<< Note 139.70 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>


| There's hidden messages in the bibble that can be applied to any sityooashun.
| Them fellers on the teevee do it all the time.

	This isn't a Clinton topic ya know....

    them fellas on the teevee talk complete bollox

    my sex talk came at 20 and I was dating this guy in college...
    
    one night, at home, mum was asleep, dad and i were watching a 
    movie.  during a commercial break, he said "honey, i don't want
    the answer to this, but if you aren't a virgin, for God's sake,
    don't tell your mother".
    
    

    ... I have a hard time believing they "did it" more than twice...
    
    (just kidding)
    
    |-{:-)
    

    
    ...like so?
    

    
    .5488

    >Then at whose financial cost?

    Why are you focus(s)ing on cost?  I'm not arguing that point; I'm well
    aware that free condoms aren't free.
    
    >In the meantime, who is held responsible?
    
    All the more reason for the parents to cooperate rather than compete.
    If the kid's parents deny him the condoms, they may well end up with
    the short end of the stick.  Err, so to speak.
    
    >And you are saying that the boy's parent's can't tell him he is not 
    >allowed to incur such a responsibility on their behalf?
    
    Sex doesn't automatically result in pregnancy...I know this from
    experience.  Sure, by all means, forbid pregnancy.  But I think we
    can both agree that a rule against sex is almost impossible to enforce, 
    and I'm not even sure what punishment a parent could reasonably bring 
    to bear once the dreaded event has occurred.  Better to teach safe and
    responsible sex (and hope that your kid is too homely to score ;^) rather 
    than demand abstinence.  To forbid sex when you have every reason to 
    believe that it'll happen anyway is to undermine your own authority.
    
    >Is a parent to be similarly prevented from prohibiting his/her
    >child from joining the football team?
    
    Well...again, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea that parents can
    pull their kid from the program, although I do think they'd be unwise
    to do so.
    

    >Why are you focus(s)ing on cost?  
    
     Because you are saying that kids should get "free" condoms, despite
    the fact that there's no such thing as free. I'm all for people using
    condoms when they have sex, but I certainly can't see that their
    already modest cost should be eliminated for those that use them. You
    can get three for the cost of a pack of cigarettes (and that's not even
    with the Canadian punitive tarriff). Tell me that kids can't afford
    them. Try to keep a straight face when doing so.
    
    >All the more reason for the parents to cooperate rather than compete.
    >If the kid's parents deny him the condoms, they may well end up with
    >the short end of the stick.  Err, so to speak.
    
     A more perfect example of the tail wagging the dog could not be made.
    
    >But I think we can both agree that a rule against sex is almost 
    >impossible to enforce, 
    
     Yes, it is. That does not, however, mean that parents should be
    prohibited from making such a rule.
    
    >(and hope that your kid is too homely to score ;^) 
    
     That only works if your kid is male. Ain't no such thing as a girl
    that's too homely to score, even if she's merely a conquest for a
    contestant in a Sea Monster contest.
    
    >To forbid sex when you have every reason to believe that it'll 
    >happen anyway is to undermine your own authority.
    
     I disagree. Some kids respond well to such prohibitions. Others ignore
    them. Who's to say what methods parents should be allowed to employ?
    
    >Well...again, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea that parents can
    >pull their kid from the program, although I do think they'd be unwise
    >to do so.
    
     That's the crux of the issue, though. The court has said that parents
    ARE NOT ALLOWED to prevent their children from getting condoms from
    school, despite the fact that using them causes them to break the law
    (seldom enforced, but still the law.) 

    and despite the fact that not using them will kill them...

                                                 
    .77
    
    >Because you are saying that kids should get "free" condoms, despite
    >the fact that there's no such thing as free.

    I'm not saying kids can't afford them.  I think the program is a good
    idea.  Hell, even I get uncomfortable going into the drugstore to buy
    condoms; I can imagine how a 13-year-old would feel.  There's probably
    even a good chance the staff at the store would refuse to sell to the
    kid, fearing parental reprisal.  Then what?

    I don't plan to defend the program to the bitter end, because that's
    not really the issue I'm discussing.  But If you say on the one hand 
    that condoms are cheap enough for kids to afford with their allowance,
    then I imagine the cost to taxpayers of such a program would also be
    low, unless the Pentagon is doing the buying. 
    
    >A more perfect example of the tail wagging the dog could not be made.
    
    Well, you can like it or not.  But what're you gonna do when the kid,
    who was forbidden to have sex or take part in a condom distribution
    program, comes home and tells you s/he's expecting?  What's a suitable
    punishment that'll ensure this "never happens again" (he said, 
    ironically)?

    >>To forbid sex when you have every reason to believe that it'll 
    >>happen anyway is to undermine your own authority.
    >
    >I disagree. Some kids respond well to such prohibitions. Others ignore
    >them. Who's to say what methods parents should be allowed to employ?
    
    Or rather, who's to say which method will work best?  Frankly, I would
    think that telling my kid not to do something that I know I can't stop
    him from doing would make me look like a gasbag.  In any case, I still
    don't believe that the human right of free association does not apply
    to adolescents.  Hell, we're more than happy to treat them as adults if
    they do something wrong.  Why not give them a chance to make some
    correct decisions as well?  Some of us did, you know.  I did.  You did.
    
    Maybe we want to broaden this to a general discussion of children's
    rights (as if I had the time).  Do kids have any rights (as Phil asked)?
    Are the condoms part of a public health initiative (as Doug asserts), and 
    if so, shouldn't the kid be entitled to the very best in health care,
    even if it conflicts with the parents' wishes?

    >That's the crux of the issue, though. The court has said that parents
    >ARE NOT ALLOWED to prevent their children from getting condoms from
    >school,

    Well, I disagree with both the court and the parents, although if I had
    to choose, I'd side with the court.

    Seems everyone (with a few exceptions) has decided that all children will 
    have sex before reaching 15, thus junior schools MUST pass out condoms and 
    parents MUST NOT be allowed to keep their kids from recieving them.
    
    I'm sorry, but there is simply something wrong with a school passing
    out condoms to a 12-14 year old.  Talk about sending your mixed
    messages.  Of course the real tragety is that there are enough problems
    with children having sex that folks feel this way; but what do you
    expect when most folks push for more permissiveness in society.  Kids
    are not immune to the message we are sending. 
    
    
    re: .78
    
    Rarely true in the cases of kids in this age group, though I grant that 
    it is a *possibility* in some cases.  The use of such broad-brushed scare 
    tactics is rather disengenuous.
    
    
    -steve  

    >I think the program is a good idea.  
    
     So do I, so long as there is provision for parents to opt out if they
    so choose. In which case, their kids can stroll down to the corner
    drugstore or 24 hour store or any of 1000 other places and buy them
    just like real adults.
    
    >But what're you gonna do when the kid,
    >who was forbidden to have sex or take part in a condom distribution
    >program, comes home and tells you s/he's expecting?
    
     The same thing you'd do if the kid had taken part and the birth
    control failed, or they ran out and decided they just couldn't wait
    until they could get more, etc. Deal with it.
    
    >What's a suitable punishment that'll ensure this "never happens again"
    
     Dealing with it the first time should be plenty enough punishment. :-)
    Maybe getting them in front of their peers to tell them what a gas it
    was to deal with an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy would be helpful-
    at least to their friends.
    
    >Or rather, who's to say which method will work best?  
    
     Every situation is different. Everyone has different definitions of
    "best." Thus everyone should have the right to parent as they see fit
    unless it can be shown that they are neglecting or abusing their
    children.
    
    >Frankly, I would
    >think that telling my kid not to do something that I know I can't stop
    >him from doing would make me look like a gasbag.  
    
     So you're never going to tell your children not to smoke crack or
    shoot heroin? You're never going to tell them not to lie or cheat or
    steal? You can't stop them; your attitude seems to be not to try unless
    success is assured.
    
     I'm not worried about looking like a gasbag to my kids. I'm honest
    with them, and I hope that that honesty allows my kids to consider my
    advice and counsel in the spirit in which it is offered. If something
    is a really stupid thing to do, I'll tell them that, and I'll explain
    why. If they choose to do it anyway, well, I tried. Works for me. We'll
    see how it works for my kids.
    
    >In any case, I still don't believe that the human right of free 
    >association does not apply to adolescents.  
    
     I think that it's a stretch to put screwing under the aegis of free
    association, and I'm rather fond of the activity, myself.
    
    >Hell, we're more than happy to treat them as adults if they do something 
    >wrong.  
    
     Not at 12 years old we don't. 
    
    >Why not give them a chance to make some correct decisions as well?  
    >Some of us did, you know.  I did.  You did.
    
     They still need guidance.
    
    

>    >What's a suitable punishment that'll ensure this "never happens again"
>
>     Dealing with it the first time should be plenty enough punishment. :-)
>    Maybe getting them in front of their peers to tell them what a gas it
>    was to deal with an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy would be helpful-
>    at least to their friends.


Oddly, my observation has been (at least in some cases) that dealing with it
the first time _wasn't_ plenty enough. An acquaintance, who professes to
have strong morals and family values and appears to bring up their children
with same, has a daughter who became pregnant at 14. The child suffered a 
miscarriage somewhere around her six or seventh month, but went out and got
knocked up again and actually gave birth a few weeks after her 16th birthday.

    thjere is a move afoot in the CO legislature to make 12 year-olds
    chargable under the adult criminal code, but that is a rathole.
    
    If kids are old enough to be ferrtile they are old enough to have
    protection available.  In my case I prefer my kids use what I buy for
    myself as I do know that what I buy and what the quality is, but they
    can make their own decisions.  I prefer that kids wait, but giving them
    the information may save their own lives.  In the case of kids whose
    parents merely say don't do that until there is a ring on your finger,
    they may need access to more than condoms.  If the MA program works the
    way a similar program in Denver does, there is also counseling on the
    responsiblities and consequences of sex and that abstinence is the best
    guarantee against pregnancy and disease, and also instructions on how
    to properly use a condom as improper use can create consequences.
    
    meg
    

    .81
     
    >In which case, their kids can stroll down to the corner
    >drugstore or 24 hour store or any of 1000 other places and buy them
    >just like real adults.

    Should the condom seller be liable to civil remedy if the parent
    objects to the sale?  (because I'm guessing he is)
    
    >Deal with it.

    Which is, of course, all you *can* do.  Prior restraint, as you well
    know, often (and perhaps usually) does not work in this issue.
    
    >Maybe getting them in front of their peers to tell them what a gas it
    >was to deal with an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy would be helpful-
    >at least to their friends.
    
    Not bad.

    >Thus everyone should have the right to parent as they see fit
    >unless it can be shown that they are neglecting or abusing their
    >children.

    And if it can be shown to be a public health issue?
    
    >So you're never going to tell your children not to smoke crack or
    >shoot heroin?

    *IF* I ever have kids, I'd take the same approach to these thing as
    I would to sex.  "Look, I can't stop you from doing XXXXXXX outside 
    this house, so let's discuss the ramifications to you and me of XXXXXXX."
    
    >If they choose to do it anyway, well, I tried. Works for me. We'll
    >see how it works for my kids.

    Sounds reasonable.  Prohibition, to me, sounds unreasonable.  I won't
    defend an unreasonable position.
    
    >I think that it's a stretch to put screwing under the aegis of free
    >association, and I'm rather fond of the activity, myself.

    If the govenrnment moved to ban sex, under what argument would you
    oppose the move?
    
    >Not at 12 years old we don't.

    Tell that to the crowds who shouted for the heads of the two little
    boys in Britain that murdered the toddler.  Everytime a serious crime
    is committed by a minor here we are drowned in a chorus of disapproval
    for the federal Young Offenders Act.
    
    >They still need guidance.
    
    Guidance, yes, of course.  Never said otherwise.
     

    
    .80
    
    Steve, I'm gonna use your "mixed message" argument 
    to strain my pasta.
    

       <<< Note 139.85 by TROOA::COLLINS "In the dead heat of Time..." >>>

>    Steve, I'm gonna use your "mixed message" argument 
>    to strain my pasta.
 

	It appears that those who have a problem with programs like this
	on "moral" grounds (vs. the government funding issue) are awfully
	nervous that maybe they haven't taught their children quite as
	well as they thought.

	The temptation of sex is there, with or without the condoms. If
	the children are taught to resist temptation, then the availibility
	of condoms, regardless of source, should not matter. 

	No?

Jim  

    >Should the condom seller be liable to civil remedy if the parent
    >objects to the sale?  (because I'm guessing he is)
    
     I assume you're asking if it should be possible for the parent to sue
    the condom seller. I think the answer is emphatically no.
    
    >Sounds reasonable.  Prohibition, to me, sounds unreasonable.  I won't
    >defend an unreasonable position.
    
     What is unreasonable to you and me can be quite reasonable to others.
    I cannot accede to usurping parental rights in the absence of a
    compelling reason. A difference of opinion over the efficacy or style
    of a particular approach does not a compelling argument make.
    
    >If the govenrnment moved to ban sex, under what argument would you
    >oppose the move?
    
     The government does not have the authority to ban sex.
    
    

             <<< Note 139.87 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>

>     I assume you're asking if it should be possible for the parent to sue
>    the condom seller. I think the answer is emphatically no.
 
	I would wager that some of our "brethren" would argue that
	it should be illegal to sell condoms to minors.

	Anybody want to take the bet?

Jim

    
    .86
    
    Jim, condoms *cause* sex, just as guns cause violence.  
    
    Err...
    
    ;^)
    

    
    .87
        
    >I assume you're asking if it should be possible for the parent to sue
    >the condom seller. I think the answer is emphatically no.
    
    Now hold on here...is the parents' authority absolute or not?  If so,
    how can a store owner safely sell condoms to minors who are, by legal
    definition, not supposed to be having sex?  How can a store owner
    usurp parental authority in this matter without fear of civil action?
    
    >What is unreasonable to you and me can be quite reasonable to others.
    >I cannot accede to usurping parental rights in the absence of a
    >compelling reason. 
    
    Back, then, to the concept of children's rights.  What rights do kids
    have, and what happens when those rights conflict with parental
    autority?
    
    >>If the govenrnment moved to ban sex, under what argument would you
    >>oppose the move?
    >
    >The government does not have the authority to ban sex.
    
    Why not?  How has sex been protected from government prohibition?
    

    
    	I think the answer to this whole problem is the lack of a dress
    	code in the US.
    
    	If everybody would wear loose-fitting clothing, no mini-skirts,
    	halter tops, shorts or bathing suits, there would be no tempt-
    	ation.
    
    	Anyone violating this dress code would be shot on sight.
    

    >Now hold on here...is the parents' authority absolute or not?  
    
     Nobody has argued that the parents' authority is absolute.
    
    >Back, then, to the concept of children's rights.  What rights do kids
    >have, and what happens when those rights conflict with parental
    >autority?
    
     Children have a few basic rights. Food, shelter, clothing, medical
    care, freedom from abuse, freedom from exploitation. They do not have
    the right of self-determination. They don't have the right to decide
    what the family will have for dinner. They don't have the right to
    decide what TV shows they can watch. They don't have the right to
    decide they will not have a curfew. Now it may well be better for the
    child to have input to such decisions than not, but they do not have a
    _right_ to make such decisions apart from the parents.
    
    

    shawn, does this mean you're throwing away all your mini-skirts
    and halter tops?

    
    	Already did that ... outgrew them a couple years ago.
    

    .92
    
    >Nobody has argued that the parents' authority is absolute.
    
    But if the parent should have the right to prohibit their kids from
    getting condoms at school, then they should have the right to prevent
    their kids from getting condoms at the store.  Isn't the store owner
    interfering in the parents' decision?  What remedy does the parent
    have in that case?

    >Children have a few basic rights...They do not have
    >the right of self-determination.

    Agreed, they don't have that right.  But in this case (i.e. sex amongst
    peers, which I still feel is an aspect of free association), I believe
    that it *should* be a child's right to decide, for the following
    reason:

    "...it may well be better for the child to have input to such decisions
     than not..."
        

    This troubles me.

    
    Oh YEAH?!?!
    

>					Isn't the store owner
>    interfering in the parents' decision?  What remedy does the parent
>    have in that case?

The issue here has to do with the legality of the sale of condoms to
minors. Provided it is legal, a parent shouldn't have any remedy
against the storekeeper, regardless of their decisions. Witness
the remedy parents had(n't) against merchants who sold cigarettes
to kids prior to such sales being made illegal. Parental decisions
are insufficient to restrict free (legal) trade.

    
    .98
    
    Agreed, Jack.
    

    re: .85
    
    Well, at least you get some use out of it.  Glad to be of service, I
    am.

    
    .100
    
    GASP!  Has Steve given up snarfing for the New Year?
    
    Happy Days!!!   ;^)
    

    
    Steve!  Stop that!
    

    re: .86
    
    Actually, it isn't so much moral grounds or public funding, it is a
    matter of drawing a line between school (government) and parental
    authority/responsibility.
    
    On the practical side, I see passing out condoms as condoning sex by an
    authority figure (teachers/counselers) in the child's life.  It isn't
    really even a mixed message, it is a license.
    
    Telling kids that IF they have sex, they should use a condom is one
    thing.  Supplying the condoms is quite another thing altogether in the
    eyes of the child.  *I* would have taken this as official approval when
    I was 12-14.  *I* would have easily ignored parents and any teachings
    of the school against having sex, because if the school is giving me a 
    condom, then it must be okay to have sex, right?  It is too easy for
    kids to forget any teachings and such in light of such a school
    license.
    
    I suspect I was not the rare exception amoung kids then, or now (luckily, 
    my school did not pass out condoms).
    
    Tell kids to use condoms if they have sex, but make them go out and buy
    them for themselves.  Passing them out is nothing more than an official 
    "okey-dokey" in the eyes of most kids.
    
    
    
    -steve             

    
    .103
    
    That's all well and good as long as you choose to ignore the
    REALITY of teen sex.
    

    Beware!  I AM the reality of teen sex.  Mummy was 17 and Daddy was 18.

    luv child!  always second best!
    luv child!  different from the rest!

    >Agreed, they don't have that right.  But in this case (i.e. sex amongst
    >peers, which I still feel is an aspect of free association), I believe
    >that it *should* be a child's right to decide, for the following
    >reason:

    >"...it may well be better for the child to have input to such decisions
    > than not..."
    
     Whether you choose to allow your children to decide they can boink at
    12 years old or not is your decision. You can choose to allow your
    child complete autonomy in this regard, but you are not _required_ to. 
    If you were required to, then it would be a right on the part of the
    child. You may even feel compelled to give your child complete autonomy
    in this regard, but it remains your decision (to do that or not.)

    
    .105
    
    Well, Colin, you and I *both* wouldn't be here, in a "moral" world.
    
    :^)
    

    -1 agreed. no one is saying all 15 yr. olds are going to have sex.
       reality is many will.
    
       every program i've read strongly emphasizes the virtue and value
       of abstaining. condoms are treated as a parachute. the watchword
       with these programs has always be responsibility.
    
       this situation is be spoken to as if they'll be laid out in the
       cafeteria in sort of a "take some they're free" manner.

    
    .107

    >Whether you choose to allow your children to decide they can boink at
    >12 years old or not is your decision.
    
    Well, as I've said, I don't think that disallowing it works, so it
    may ultimately end up being the child's decision anyway.
    
    >You may even feel compelled to give your child complete autonomy
    >in this regard, but it remains your decision (to do that or not.)
    
    Yes, I believe that accurately describes the current situation,
    legally speaking.

    Mark, you seem to be ignoring 14.5476- you're certainly arguing
    without regard to its argument.  Could you please take a look at 
    it, (feel free to answer here.)
    
    DougO

    >Mark, are parents allowed to withhold treatment for lifethreatening
    >diseases from their minor children?  
    
     No, and they should not be.
    
    >If a school district determines that the kids are having sex 
    >and that disease prevention measures (condoms) are cheap
    >and effective and will save lives, then by what rights does the parent,
    >who has evidently FAILED to teach their child abstinence, endanger
    >their lives?  
    
    If a school district determines that the kids are shooting heroin and 
    that disease prevention measures (needles) are cheap
    and effective and will save lives, then by what rights does the parent,
    who has evidently FAILED to teach their child abstinence, endanger
    their lives?  

    RE: .110

    I believe the point is not whether it is the child's decision, but
    whether or not the school/government is going to undermine the parents
    authority.

    Let's say that you choose to raise your child as an atheist. 
    Ultimately it is the child's choice whether or not they will or will
    not believe in God.  Now let's say that the school/government in the
    authority figure of a teacher starts preaching Christianity, Judaism,
    or some other religion...

    -- Dave

    Cute, you can do mimicry, {what was the rest of your retort to Mary?}.
    But society doesn't view teenage use of heroin or other injectible drugs 
    as casually as it does teenage sex, so your analogy falls apart.
    
    Seriously, the health issues must be addressed.  The schools are
    in the best position, having more contact with the kids than any
    other public agency, to decide to offer devices to protect lives
    (yes, I'm talking about condoms.)  Kids are not forced to accept
    condoms- they are allowed to ask for them, or to pay for them in
    vending machines on school grounds.  Why should [a few, reactionary] 
    parents [who obviously can't trust their own kids] be permitted to 
    veto this health measure that would protect their own kids and others?
    Clearly, the court decided they can't.  And this is in line with other
    court decisions on health care issues neglected by parents.
    
    DougO

    This is all quite simple, when you get to the root of the issue.
    
    The school was originally put there to provide basic education in
    the fundamentals of reading, writing, mathematics, science, history,
    and other particular academic subjects.
    
    In the last couple of decades, people in government have decided
    to essentially kidnap this captive audience of children, and to
    expand and abuse their authority in what was originally a limited
    domain, to introduce virtually anything they desire into the
    population via the children.  This includes social, political,
    sexual, and "health" issues, among others.
    
    Schools should do what they were originally supposed to do.  Notice
    that as they get worse at fundamental education, the more they want
    to concentrate on these other sociopolitical agendas.
    
    Anything that falls outside of this basic education is the domain
    of the parents.  It's that simple.  As long as I'm providing for my
    child properly (in the areas that Mark enumerated earlier), that's the
    end of the government's (and school's) involvement.
    
    It's amazing that more and more people have become so accustomed to
    the government/school getting involved in all aspects of our children's
    lives, that we're just assuming they have the "right" to do so, and
    who are we mere parents to get in the way?
    
    Chris

    RE: .114

>    Kids are not forced to accept
>    condoms- they are allowed to ask for them, or to pay for them in
>    vending machines on school grounds.  

    Hmmm.  I was under the impression that there was a more active role
    being played in the distribution.  I wouldn't object to a vending
    machine dispensing the condoms; I would object to a teacher handing
    them out in class.

    IMHO, an intelligent way to have a vending machine would be to also
    have the vending machine dispense other items (e.g., pencils, erasers,
    etc.) so that it isn't obvious to everyone around why the person is
    visiting the vending machine.

    -- Dave

    >Why should [a few, reactionary] 
    >parents [who obviously can't trust their own kids] be permitted to 
    >veto this health measure that would protect their own kids and others?
    
     Because it's not a simple health issue, despite your attempts to paint
    it as one. There is a moral component to sexual congress; at least
    there is to some people. And those people's efforts to raise their
    children should not be undermined by the school providing a means to go
    against the parents' wishes.
    
     Ralto really hits the nail on the head: the worse that schools perform
    at their primary function, the more interested they become in expanding
    their speheres of influence.

    Send your kids to a private school far from the evyl social
    engineers.  Then you'll only have the tax inequity to worry about.

    RE: .115

>    Anything that falls outside of this basic education is the domain
>    of the parents.  It's that simple.  As long as I'm providing for my
>    child properly (in the areas that Mark enumerated earlier), that's the
>    end of the government's (and school's) involvement.

    Given that my nephews (ages 1.8 & 3.5) are in day-care all week long
    and shuttled off to baby-sitters on a semi-regular basis when they
    aren't in day-care, who do you think is actually providing "the domain
    of the parents"?

    Having said that, I don't believe that the schools should usurp the
    parental domain -- unless the parents surrender it.

    -- Dave

    re: .117
    
    There's a moral component to science as well, should parents
    have the right to request their child be removed from the 
    science curricula without penalty?
    
    

    only if it pushes evolutionary theory.

    I take it you see no difference between teaching science and handing
    out condoms to children whose parents specifically don't want them.

    > Because it's not a simple health issue, despite your attempts to paint
    > it as one.
    
    You misread.  I do not pretend that the issue is simply one of health.
    I recognize that the lowest common denominator *is* the health issue.
    If there is more to it than that, the parents are quite entitled to
    teach their children the moral issues.  Their FAILURE to do so is not
    an excuse for these parents to then penalize every kid in the school,
    merely to prevent their own child from sidestepping them.
    
    DougO

    re: .104
    
    You have managed to miss my point(s) entirely.  Oh well.

    re: .115
    
    Well said.

             <<< Note 139.117 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "memory canyon" >>>

>And those people's efforts to raise their
>    children should not be undermined by the school providing a means to go
>    against the parents' wishes.
 
	The "means" to go against the parents wishes are standard issue
	for every Mk 1 Human. Check the parts list under the subheading
	"Genitalia".

Jim
	

>	The "means" to go against the parents wishes are standard issue
>	for every Mk 1 Human. Check the parts list under the subheading
>	"Genitalia".

Um, I think you mean "brains."

    
    .113
    
    I believe I know what my point is.
    

  <<< Note 139.127 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Um, I think you mean "brains."


	Uh, no. If they had brains they would figure out the risks
	(both Physically and mentally) and wait until they were
	older.

Jim

    
    .115
    
    The "reading, writing, 'rithmatic" refrain just doesn't cut it in the
    '90s.  The world is more complicated than that.  
    

    
    > The "reading, writing, 'rithmatic" refrain just doesn't cut it in the
    > '90s.  The world is more complicated than that.  
    
    Oddly enough, if you're any good at sex you can usually find
    work, but there's many a college grad who can't scrape up
    a dime! :-)
    
    -b

    
    .122
    
    >I take it you see no difference between teaching science and handing
    >out condoms to children whose parents specifically don't want them.
    
    A difference...sure there is.  But a similarity, too.
    
    The point is valid.
    

    
    .124
    
    No, Steve, I didn't miss your point.  I don't agree with it.
    
    There's a difference.
    

    RE: .128

>    I believe I know what my point is.

    Congratulations, but at the time of .113 it wasn't apparent that you
    picked up on what Levesque's point was.

    -- Dave

    
    .134
    
    You are apparently not following the discussion between Mark and I,
    in which "condoms at school" is only an incidental sidebar to my more
    central point (children's rights, or lack thereof).
    
    hth
    

    RE: .135

    You're right.  Nevermind.

    -- Dave

    
    No prob.  :^)
    

    >> The "reading, writing, 'rithmatic" refrain just doesn't cut it in the
    >> '90s.  The world is more complicated than that.  
    
    No, it's not.  That's rapidly becoming a familiar armwave of the
    "let the school raise your kids" crowd, but it's invalid, and in
    any event, that's up to the parents to decide, not the schools.
    The government/school control freaks are attempting to make the world
    more complicated by ramming all of this stuff down children's throats,
    but in reality a child's life can be (and should be) quite simple.
    
    Simplicity is controllable, it's not like some writhing monster
    that we must respond to with more and more frantic social intervention.
    
    I've had to do a lot of damage control in the years that my kids have
    been in school, and most of it involves the school making my kids'
    lives more complicated, mainly by needlessly introducing things
    to them long before they were ready for it, in the name of "getting
    them ready for the difficult world out there".
    
    I'll do that, thank you, and I'll do it when I think my kids are ready
    for it.  That's *my* judgment call to make, not theirs.  And if other
    parents don't "do their jobs" in the proper social indoctrination, then
    that's too bad, but it's not a valid reason for tromping on my parental
    rights.
    
    It's ironic in that the school itself is the source of making things
    more complicated, and then they turn around and try to justify it by
    saying that it's a more complex world today, and so on.
    
    Chris

    Look,
    
    if you raise your children "morally" and did a good job of it, it is
    doubtful they will want a condom or wish to use same for anything other
    than a large water balloon.  
    
    If you raised your child "morally" and didn't do a good job of it, and
    they decide to do something "immoral" than wouldn't you rather they be
    protected, or is a childs loss of future or even life less important
    than a "moral lesson" in action?  
    
    I prefer that my children not investigate sex until they are old enough
    to handle all responsibilities and consequences as well as the fun, and
    I tell them this.  However, I don't want my daughters to be faced with
    an unplanned pregnancy or a serious or fatal disease far more than I
    don't want them to decide to play before they are ready.
    
    meg

    .138
    
    >That's rapidly becoming a familiar armwave of the
    >"let the school raise your kids" crowd, but it's invalid, and in
    >any event, that's up to the parents to decide, not the schools.
    
    I don't know what it's like where you are, but here the school boards
    are under constant parental pressure, and from just about every direction.
    Ultimately, the school is there to do what the parents want it to, and
    that is what the curriculum and programs usually reflect, NOT the lust
    for power they are so often accused of.

    >...but in reality a child's life can be (and should be) quite simple.
    
    Should be, maybe, but isn't.  For instance, I had no father around to
    teach me how to fix a dripping faucet (my mom sure didn't know how). 
    Single-parent families are hardly unique these days.  So, should the 
    schools add "life skills" to the 3Rs?

    re: .133
    
    Actually, your response seemed to indicate that you did indeed miss my
    point.  
    
    I already knew you disagreed with me. 8^) 

    
    re.139
    
    >If you raised your child "morally" and didn't do a good job of it, and
    >they decide to do something "immoral" than wouldn't you rather they be
    >protected, or is a childs loss of future or even life less important
    >than a "moral lesson" in action?  
    
   But what some people are saying is that the child already has the
    ability to be protected. The are a lot of sources for the protection
    already.
    
    I know personally that my daughter had access to protection at high
    school age. I didn't supply it and the school didn't supply it, but she
    had it anyway. I wonder how she got it? 
    
    My personal opinion is that most of the time the kids aren't going to
    plan far enough ahead to make school-available condoms effective. I
    know that the standard answer to this is that if it helps once that's
    justification enough. But I don't buy that.
    
    ed

    >> If you raised your child "morally" and didn't do a good job of it, and
    >> they decide to do something "immoral" than wouldn't you rather they be
    >> protected, or is a childs loss of future or even life less important
    >> than a "moral lesson" in action?  
    
    
    In other words, to compensate for a lazy and/or incompetent parent who
    doesn't do their job right, I'm supposed to give up my parental rights
    so that their kid can be "protected" by Big School?  No thanks.
    
    This isn't about a "moral lesson in action" to me.  It's about my
    right to control what my kids are exposed to, and when they're
    exposed to it.  I am most strongly disinclined to relinquish control
    of my child to the government.
    
    And to show you how strongly I feel about it, no, the loss of future
    or even life of the child of a lazy and/or incompetent parent is most
    certainly *not* sufficient cause for me to cave in to the government's
    increasing demands to force everything onto my children that I feel
    they're not ready for.  Parents, do your jobs.
    
    "If it saves one life" will most certainly not induce me to essentially
    hand control of my children over to the government.
    
    Chris

    
    .141
    
    Sorry, Steve, but I don't have time to debate you on a more
    point-by-point basis, so I have to settle for "bollocks!".
    
    I knew you'd understand.   ;^)
    
    

    No problem.

    
    .143

    >And to show you how strongly I feel about it, no, the loss of future
    >or even life of the child of a lazy and/or incompetent parent is most
    >certainly *not* sufficient cause...
    
    As you might expect, I find this position to be completely amoral.
    
    
    "Wait a minute...how does this affect me?"
    
    		- Herb Tarlek
     

    >> As you might expect, I find this position to be completely amoral.
    
    And I find the "give up all your freedoms to save hypothetical lives
    in any scenario that we wish to construct" position to be equally amoral.
    This is reflective of some of the fundamental differences between the
    "Big Government" crowd and the "Government Outta My Face" crowd.  I
    freely admit being in the latter...
    
    I'm aghast at being compared with Herb Tarlek... I have much better
    taste in suits.
    
    Chris

    -1  aw, c'mon...Herb was one stylish puppy

    Well, now wait a second.  'Spose you raise your kid morally
    and said kid doesn't take to it, has unprotected sex, has
    a child (or children) out of wedlock, winds up on Welfare
    and/or Medicaid.  Who pays then?  Me!  Sorry, but I think
    it's much cheaper for me to make sure they have the condoms
    and the knowledge to use them.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    In Cincinnati, he was probably a trend-setter. No doubt,
    a trend that persists to this day.

    -b

    Indeed, I watch WKRP reruns for fashion inspiration.  Yes, I do.  Look
    for my next entry in the 'what are you wearing' topic.

    re: .149
    
>    Well, now wait a second.  'Spose you raise your kid morally
>    and said kid doesn't take to it, has unprotected sex, has
>    a child (or children) out of wedlock, winds up on Welfare
>    and/or Medicaid.  
    
    What if you teach your kids to use condoms, he/she does, yet still ends
    up pregnant/responsible for pregnancy? 
    
>    Who pays then?  Me!  
    
    Why should you be forced to pay for someone else's stupid mistakes?  If
    we are talking about kids, it seems that the parents are ultimately
    responsible. 
    
    As far as I'm concerned, those responsible should be held accountable,
    not the taxpayers (taling about those 18 and older).  Can't afford it?  
    Better get some help from your family.  No family/family can't afford it?  
    Better look for help at your local church/charity.  Until folks are forced 
    to deal with the reality of their own stupidity, nothing will ever change. 
    Hey, I learned a lot in the school of hard knocks.  Seems a lot of
    people out there could benefit from this kind of education.
    
    If government MUST get involved, I'd suggest leaving such involvement to
    the state or local governments, who are more accountable and closer to
    the problems.  
    
>    Sorry, but I think
>    it's much cheaper for me to make sure they have the condoms
>    and the knowledge to use them.
 
    Back to the topic at hand:
    
    Yeah, teach 12-14 year-olds how to use condoms and pass them out.  REAL
    good idea IF you want kids to have sex.  It comes down to what the
    parents, and what society, promotes.  Currently society promotes sex. 
    Most parents (I hope) promote abstinance for their kids.  The school is
    in the middle- and it seems to be pushing the kids towards sex, by
    making it an officially acceptable persuit (passing out condoms).  
    
    All these social programs in schools add up to one thing: we are
    performing social experiments on our children.
    
    
    -steve                                      

    Hmmmmmmm
    
     Why is it that kids can't pass around information about "Eddie Eagle
    Gun Safety Courses" for children in the schools, but they can pass out
    condoms...???
    
     Gotta wonder...
    

    re: .152
    
    The chances of them winding up pregnant/responsible for
    a pregnancy are greatly reduced when a condom is properly
    used.
    
    While you don't think anyone should pay for anyone else's
    mistakes, that's not the way things work now, and until
    things change, using a condom is a lot cheaper than not
    using one.
    
    Besides, I'm not entirely convinced that teaching a child
    how to properly handle a possibly dangerous activity is
    going to make them more likely to engage in it.
    
    I don't believe teaching a child gun safety makes them
    more like to kill someone with a gun.
    
    I don't believe teaching a child to properly handle a 
    car makes them more likely to have an accident.
    
    I don't believe teaching a child about the hazards of drug
    use makes them more likely to use drugs.  
    
    I don't believe teaching a child how to handle improper
    sexual conduct by adults makes them more likely to be
    child abuse victims.  
    
    I don't believe teaching a child the correct way to use
    a condom makes them more likely to have sex.

    
    .147
    
    >And I find the "give up all your freedoms to save hypothetical lives
    >in any scenario that we wish to construct" position to be equally amoral.
    
    Nothing "hypothetical" about your comments in .143, Chris:
    
    >And to show you how strongly I feel about it, no, the loss of future
    >or even life of the child of a lazy and/or incompetent parent is most
    >certainly *not* sufficient cause for me to cave in...
    
    Nobody's asking you to give up "all your freedoms", yet you certainly
    seem prepared to waste lives that are not "hypothetical", simply due to
    the fact that the child's parents are useless (NOT due to anything the
    child has done, or failed to do).  That position is vile.
    
    >This is reflective of some of the fundamental differences between the
    >"Big Government" crowd and the "Government Outta My Face" crowd.  I
    >freely admit being in the latter...
    
    And I freely admit to being in the former, spending the money of twits
    who can't see the value of investing in the future.  Free clue, Chris:
    that kid whom you don't care about (simply because his parents are
    "lazy" or "incompetent") may well steal you car stereo, or mug you, or
    worse.  Maybe THEN the value of the investment might sink in.
    

    155
    
    So the Billions spent since LBJ's Great Society has done 'wonders for
    our society since 1964; not!  The only investment we've had as a return
    on those dollars is the current sitting administration, and that ain't
    isn't something to squawk about!
    
    NR

    re: .154
  
>    Besides, I'm not entirely convinced that teaching a child
>    how to properly handle a possibly dangerous activity is
>    going to make them more likely to engage in it.
 
    But this is not where the "teaching" stops.  
       
>    I don't believe teaching a child gun safety makes them
>    more like to kill someone with a gun.
 
    Correct.  But in order for the analogy to be correct with the current
    subject, the school would not only be teaching gun safety, but would be
    passing out firearms. 
       
>    I don't believe teaching a child to properly handle a 
>    car makes them more likely to have an accident.
 
    But you don't put them behind the wheel of a car before they are old
    enough (ready).
       
>    I don't believe teaching a child about the hazards of drug
>    use makes them more likely to use drugs.  
 
    But schools are not passing out clean needles (for safety) JUST IN CASE
    the child decides to use drugs.
       
>    I don't believe teaching a child how to handle improper
>    sexual conduct by adults makes them more likely to be
>    child abuse victims.  
 
    Bad analogy.
       
>    I don't believe teaching a child the correct way to use
>    a condom makes them more likely to have sex.
    
    This is debatable, but still is not the same thing as passing out a
    condom (which I say is more or less a license to have sex in the mind
    of many kids).
    
    
    -steve

    NR,
    
    I suppose you finished school completely before 1964?  If not you are
    part of that society.  
    
    The teachers you want to complain about them are doing an incredible
    job given the tools they have to work with, and the fact that far too
    many people have the attitude you displayed in your previous note and
    do nothing but run their mouths about "ain't  it awful" rather than
    getting involved in working with those same kids.  You have the same
    chance to get involved in kids organizations, the local PTO,
    volunteering for teaching enrichment programs, volunteering to tutor or 
    mentor a struggling child that anyone who isn't a convicted child
    abuser or molester has.  
    
    Now anyone who would prefer to kill a child rather than have him or her
    participate in sex because of "useless parents" needs to take a long
    hard look in a mirror if/when they have children and they are teens. 
    If you are lucky and explained theings to your child in a reasonable
    fashion they might not get involved in sex, drugs or other icky stuff. 
    If you are not, but did you part of the explaining properly your kid
    may decide to experiment anyway.  Are YOU willing to watch YOUR own
    teen die as a result of your principles about availablity of
    protection?  I am not.  I have lost freinds to AIDS and know what a
    miserable death it can be.  My daughters also see the neighbor-child
    struggle with being 15 and the mother of a toddler, and say "ick."  The
    neighbor had high principals about BC and teens and that letting her
    have protection would be "encouraging her to have sex."  Well the
    "discouragement" didn't work and now the neighbor with the high
    principals is a grandmother.  Needless to say, her daughter is now
    recieving depo injections to avoid another  baby since her moral
    principals seemed to be lousy BC with a headstrong teen.  She also went
    over condom use and her daughter now agrees with me that any man who
    won't use one doesn't love her enough to be screwing around with her. 
    
    meg

    re: .155
 
    
>    And I freely admit to being in the former, spending the money of twits
>    who can't see the value of investing in the future.  
    
    Ah, I see.  Those who don't see things your way are twits.  Quite an
    elitist attitude you got there.  You seem to plant yourself firmly in
    the "throw money at the problem" crowd.  Ironically, the more money we
    throw into these silly social programs, the worse things tend to get.
    
    Education spending has gone up huge amounts over the years, yet our
    kids have gone from the best educated in the world to 13th in the world
    (and falling).  Throwing more money at the problem will not help, but
    just maybe, using the money we budget for education more effectively
    (meaning, wipe out all social programs in schools, and go back to
    EDUCATING our kids- rather than experimenting on them) might just help
    turn the tide.
    
>    Free clue, Chris:
>    that kid whom you don't care about (simply because his parents are
>    "lazy" or "incompetent") may well steal you car stereo, or mug you, or
>    worse.  Maybe THEN the value of the investment might sink in.
 
    If you had read Chris' note, you would not have posted this.  Chris did
    not say he didn't care about that kid, he said that just because a few
    parents won't teach their kids properly is no reason to give up his
    parenting rights to the government/school.  I agree.
    
    
    -steve   

    re: .158
    
    So, if we don't have condoms available in schools our kids are doomed? 
    Resorting to scare tactics again, I see.
    
    
    -steve

    
    .159

    >Those who don't see things your way are twits.
    
    No, those who make statements like:
    
    "...the loss of future or even life of the child of a lazy and/or 
    incompetent parent is most certainly *not* sufficient cause for me 
    to cave in..."
    
    ...are twits.  Why punish a child for the sins of the parent?
    
    >You seem to plant yourself firmly in the "throw money at the problem" 
    >crowd.  Ironically, the more money we throw into these silly social 
    >programs, the worse things tend to get.
    
    More money/less money is not the issue here, much as the black-and-
    white crowd would like it to be.
    
    >If you had read Chris' note, you would not have posted this.  Chris did
    >not say he didn't care about that kid, he said that just because a few
    >parents won't teach their kids properly is no reason to give up his
    >parenting rights to the government/school.  I agree.
    
    No, Steve.  The quote is above.  "...loss of future or even of life...",
    coupled with nonsense statements like "hand over control of my children",
    "Big Government" and "give up all your freedoms".  Honestly, where do 
    people come up with this stuff?  Don't they vote?  Don't they work with
    the local school board?  How "big" is their local school authority?
    What, are you folks living like `THX1138' down there?
       

    re: .157
    
    And you're not handing out condoms to children before they
    are old enough to physically be sexually active.  
    
    Many parents teach their children how to handle firearms
    and then given them their own guns, especially in areas
    where hunting is common.  No one gets up in arms about
    the dangers of guns.  Guns are commonplace, and are 
    generally used correctly.  What is wrong with expecting
    people to use condoms the same way?
    
    Mary-Michael
    

    >No one gets up in arms about the dangers of guns.  
    
     Bwahahahaha!
    
     Bet you can't say that with a straight face.

    
    re: .162
    
    MM...
    
    Maybe because condoms are the equivalent of a "Saturday Night Special"?

    re: .162
    
    Key words here:  "Many parents teach" ... 
    
    
    -steve

    
    
    
    RE: .164  We don't want to hear about your 2" barrel.....

    No condoms are more like something a bit more expensive.  Unprotected
    sex is the equivelent of a Saturday Night Special, or maybe a zip gun
    as it is as likely to blow up in ones own face as in the face of the
    other person.
    
    Being one of the Gun Toting liberal women in the file I teach
    age-appropriate gun safety, just as I teach age-appropriate information
    on sex, pregnancy prevention, and STD prevention, and age appropriate
    and TRUTHFUL information on drug use, including caffeine, chocolate,
    tobacco and alcohol to my kids.  
    
    I believe in the Eddie Eagle Program, it is good, just as the pocket
    knife safty course in the Boy Scout Manual is better than the safety
    information in other manuals, so I use it.  I wish that HCI and the NRA
    could find the common ground that Eddie Eagle promotes, and in our
    districts case would divorce the gun safety information from the
    D.A.R.E. program, a program with lofty goals but too much
    misinformation.  
    
    meg

    
    re: .166
    
    Go shovel some more snow!!!!!!!!
    
    :)
    

    My son asked me yesterday, "Dad, how do babies come out of the mommy?"
    "How do you know when it's time to go to the hospital?"
    
    We had an interesting discussion on the way to school yesterday.
    
    

    
    	So after you told him about the birth process, did he tell you
    	about the conception process?
    

    The quote about "...the loss of future or even life..." should not
    be attributed to me; when I said that I was directly quoting an
    earlier reply who used this phrase to paint us into a corner.
    
    Nevertheless, I stand by what I said.  No, I will not let government
    take away all of my rights and options as a parent to raise my children
    the way I see fit, even if that means that other kids are too ignorant
    and/or careless to use condoms, and thereby get pregnant, contract
    diseases, and so on.
    
    In particular, I will not let government put out buckets of free
    condoms for 11-year-old children in any school that my kids are in.
    There are also other things I will not allow in this manner.
    
    My children will be raised the way *I* want to see them raised.
    The government has no inherent right to control how my child is raised,
    and I surrender none of my rights in this area, either explicitly or
    implicitly, merely by making use of the public school system that
    I am paying dearly for with my tax dollars.
    
    If that means that children of stupid/lazy parents get into some kind
    of trouble in a non-educational area, then that's the price of freedom.
    Democracy does require some kind of personal responsibility and
    intelligence.  I'm beginning to wonder if we still deserve it.
    
    re: vile
    
    Yes, I'm vile, and I always have been.  But don't forget, it takes
    a vile man to make a tender chicken.
    
    Chris

    re: .149
    
    >> Well, now wait a second.  'Spose you raise your kid morally
    >> and said kid doesn't take to it, has unprotected sex, has
    >> a child (or children) out of wedlock, winds up on Welfare
    >> and/or Medicaid.  Who pays then?  Me!
    
    No, I'll pay for my kid's kids if necessary, and so will the
    parents of my kid's "partner".
    
    Individual responsibility, and all that.  If we can't afford it,
    we'll take another job.  And so will the kids.
    
    Chris

    Did you tell him that the stork can be seen circling overhead??  :)
    

    Sorry, .173 was ment for Jack.

    re: .154
    
    >> While you don't think anyone should pay for anyone else's
    >> mistakes, that's not the way things work now, and until
    >> things change, using a condom is a lot cheaper than not
    >> using one.
    
    Then by all means, use one.  But the kid can either go buy one
    at the store, or if he/she can't afford one, let there be a free
    distribution center at town hall, away from the schools.  I'll
    go that far, and I'll even pay for it.  I just don't want it in
    the schools.  I want the opportunity to "opt out", and I don't
    want it in my face (or my kids' faces).
    
    >> I don't believe...
    >> I don't believe...
    >> I don't believe...
    
    Okay, but not everyone agrees with every one of these beliefs, and
    so they should not be forced on all children by the government via
    the school system.
    
    Chris

    re: .155
    
    >> Nobody's asking you to give up "all your freedoms", yet you certainly
    >> seem prepared to waste lives that are not "hypothetical", simply due to
    >> the fact that the child's parents are useless (NOT due to anything the
    >> child has done, or failed to do).  That position is vile.
    
    Let's understand a fundamental important distinction here.  *I'm*
    not wasting their lives, they're wasting their *own* lives by engaging
    in unprotected sex.  This is certainly not the all-or-nothing situation
    that some of you are making it out to be.  There are many other places
    to obtain condoms and other protection.
    
    
    >> And I freely admit to being in the former, spending the money of twits
    >> who can't see the value of investing in the future.
    
    "Investing in the future" is a good liberal clich� that's used to
    justify anything and everything, and if you're against it, then
    you're against the future.  Yeah, right...
    
    As for "twits" (and "vile", etc.), it's typical for liberals to resort
    to personal insult when the shaky house of cards falls apart.  Far from
    being offended, I'm delighted; it shows that you have nothing else
    left to do other than hand-wave and throw rocks.
    
    
    >> Free clue, Chris:
    >> that kid whom you don't care about (simply because his parents are
    >> "lazy" or "incompetent") may well steal you car stereo, or mug you, or
    >> worse.  Maybe THEN the value of the investment might sink in.
    
    This is another old liberal clich�: hand over your [money, freedoms,
    etc.] for the sake of the "underprivileged", or else they'll be in your
    face wanting to know why not.  I have a difficult time making the stretch
    between condoms in schools and my car stereo.  Are we supposed to just
    roll over and let the government do anything it wants, just because
    we're all being held hostage by this old threat?
    
    Chris

    And if it is your child who is getting involved, and you don't have an
    established dialogue on where to get such things you don't care about
    your child dying?
    
    I don't worry so much about mine, I keep such things handy.  Also I
    don't believe anyone said that condoms are put in buckets in the
    hallways, (although that might not be a bad idea,)  The programs I know
    about require seeing the school nurse or counselor who also reenforces
    instructions on proper use to avoid slip offs or breaks, as well as
    full potential consequences of sexual activities.
    
    meg

    re: .158
    
    >> Now anyone who would prefer to kill a child rather than have him or her
    >> participate in sex because of "useless parents" needs to take a long
    >> hard look in a mirror if/when they have children and they are teens. 
    
    This is as twisted a misrepresentation of a stated position as I've
    ever seen in this forum.  The source is not particularly surprising.
    
    I never said I'd prefer to kill a child.  I never said that I don't
    want to have them participate in sex.  Let them participate in all the
    sex they want, and let them use up so many condoms that a latex
    shortage threatens to drive up the price of Playtex Living Gloves.
    
    I don't want those condoms distributed to 11-year-olds in middle
    school.  In fact, I don't want the educational system to distribute
    condoms to my children at all.  That is *my* function, to do if and
    when I believe my kids are ready.  It is *not* their function.  Schools
    are abusing the trust that we've placed in them by virtue of handing
    our children over to them for *educational* purposes, to drive many
    other social/political agendas, this being only one such area.
    
    If people die because of their own carelessness and/or laziness,
    then that's the consequences of their own actions; *I'm* not killing
    them, they're killing themselves.  This "you're killing them" is
    yet another hand-waving liberal argument that's frequently used
    to misdirect responsibility and attempt to assign guilt if you dare
    to not buy into the entire agenda.  It's old and tired.  It even
    used to work, back in the 60's and 70's, but all the old propaganda
    tricks have been out of the bag for way too long, and everyone
    knows about them.
    
    I'm not giving up my freedom so that others may be relieved of
    personal responsibility.  If you want to be taken care of by the
    government, fine, but don't be so audacious to force it upon the
    rest of us who neither want nor need it.
    
    
    >> If you are not, but did you part of the explaining properly your kid
    >> may decide to experiment anyway.  Are YOU willing to watch YOUR own
    >> teen die as a result of your principles about availablity of
    >> protection?  I am not.
    
    Of course some of them are going to experiment.  And if they're
    going to experiment, then they know where to buy condoms.  I'll drive
    them to the store, I'll pay for them, and I'll even buy them myself
    and personally give them to the kids.  But *I'll* do it with my kids,
    not the school; and *I'll* do it when *I* think *my* kids are ready, not
    when the school says *everyone's* ready (without any regard for
    individual differences or sensitivities between children).
    
    Is any of this getting through?  *My* kids, *my* choice.  Get it?
    *Choice*.  You liberals know about "choice". "Get the government
    out of our bedrooms", you love to say.  Well, get your damned government
    the hell out of my children's bedrooms!
    
    Condoms are widely available and very inexpensive.  Thanks to sex
    education in school, kids know all about condoms and where to get
    them, even if their parents haven't told them.  If kids choose not to
    obtain them, then they'll have to accept and deal with the consequences
    of their actions.  It is not a function of government to provide this
    protection, and it's certainly not a function of the educational
    system.  *I'll* decide when I want my kids exposed to this material, not
    the government.
    
    Most importantly, those of us who do not want condoms distributed to
    our children in school are *not* responsible for the actions and results
    of others.  I am totally unwilling to accept the premise that I must
    accept any objectionable governmental intrusion in my life (or the
    lives of my children) "or else" accept responsibility for what others
    do as a result of their own actions.
    
    Chris

    >I don't want those condoms distributed to 11-year-olds in middle
    >school.
    
     Murderer!

    re: .162
    
    >> Many parents teach their children how to handle firearms
    >> and then given them their own guns, especially in areas
    >> where hunting is common.  No one gets up in arms...
    
    Good pun, there, at the end.  As for the rest of it, I'd be
    just as upset if the school system started mandatory firearm
    training as I am at the notion of handing out condoms.
    
    This isn't about condoms.  This is about government exceeding its
    limits by abusing the educational system to increasingly usurp
    parental authority and domain, in many different areas.
    
    Chris

    >> D.A.R.E. program, a program with lofty goals but too much
    >> misinformation.  
    
    
    Oh, don't get me started on D.A.R.E...
    
    I watch this program closely.  I can't believe some of the stuff that
    they force onto the kids in the name of drug abuse.  In fact, most of
    what they've talked about in elementary school has absolutely nothing
    to do with drug abuse.  Of course, if you ask, they can wave their
    hands and flap their arms pretty hard, and ultimately they can spin
    a tenuous theoretical multi-linked connection between whatever
    they're talking about and the likelihood of future drug use.
    
    It's yet-another area where they've gotten their foot in the door,
    and now they're using the wedge to deliver lots of messages other
    than what was advertised.
    
    It's getting harder and harder every week to keep up with the
    damage control from the school system's various indoctrinations
    (between warped social-studies history rewriting, "health" programs,
    D.A.R.E., and do on), but I'm managing.  Fortunately, the kids are
    now so in tune with what the school's doing that they automatically
    reject most of the crap themselves.
    
    Chris

    Our school district does teach the minimum age appropriate gun safety
    in the 5th grade bundles in with the D.A.R.E. program.  It is based opn
    Eddie Eagles course on gun proofing children:
    
    1.  Don't touch
    
    2.  Leave the area
    
    3.  Find a responsible adult
    
    I wish they didn't bundle this in with D.A.R.E. as I have major issues
    with that particular program, and its lack of effectiveness.  The
    intent is good but they are innacurate on some subjects and if a child
    finds they have been lied to on one issue they may well miss the real
    dangers of another presented in the same program.  
    
    meg

 Re .178



 B-b-b-but Hillary says it takes a whole village to raise a child.




 Jim

    re .183
    
    that is not just a statement from Hillary, it is used by many people,
    and originally attributed to Mandela, but I understand he got it from
    an essay written by someone else.  
    
    I also believe it to be true.

    It comes from the 'communitarian' movement.  Here's a statement from a
    review of a Cato-sponsored debate including one of the founders of the 
    Communitarian Network.
    
    "... Mr. Etzioni argues that children absorb their values from their
       parents and the people and social institutions around them. He
       believes that our community ties make us nobler than we would be
       otherwise. He believes that community structures (such as schools
       operated by local governments) can be effective because the areas of
       moral disagreement among men are at the fringes. We all agree murder
       is wrong; we all agree that your rights end where my rights begin;
       and so on."
    
    DougO

    Two thoughts:
    
    If you really don't want your kids to be subjected to whatever you
    disapprove of in public schools, you have alternatives, like private
    schools, or home schooling.  The one alternative that is not open to
    you is to force every other family who sends their kids to public
    schools to do everything *your* way.  If you want your kids to go to
    public schools, then you'll have to learn to compromise some of your
    ideals.  No big deal -- everyone has to do the same thing.  Welcome to
    the club, and don't feel so sorry for yourselves.
    
    And about condoms in school...  That issue arose in the first place in
    large part because many parents realized how difficult it is for kids
    to obtain condoms in the usual places, like drugstores, and might
    therefore not be bothered to use them.  But with all the hoopla about the
    issue, and years of more and more public discussion of the subject,
    it must be getting easier for all kids to deal with getting condoms
    however they have to do it -- just look at where they keep them in
    stores these days, no longer behind the counter where you have to ask
    for them.  So those shy kids are getting some of the benefits of more
    easily available condoms in spite of, and in part because of, the
    protestations of those who are dead set against kids having easier
    access to condoms.  Ain't it funny how these things work sometimes?
    

>                                            But with all the hoopla about the
>    issue, and years of more and more public discussion of the subject,
>    it must be getting easier for all kids to deal with getting condoms
>    however they have to do it -- just look at where they keep them in
>    stores these days, no longer behind the counter where you have to ask
>    for them.

Hoopla, shoopla.  It's AIDS that's caused the condom to come out from behind
the counter.

    > Hoopla, shoopla.  It's AIDS that's caused the condom to come out from
    > behind the counter.
    
    Well, that and "The Graduate" being released on video...
    
    -b

    
    .176

    Chris, I haven't the time to continue this as I would like, so you
    will get the last word in.  But...
    
    >"Investing in the future" is a good liberal clich�...
    
    Your notes in this topic have used just about every paranoid 
    conservative clich� I can think of.  P&K, at best.
    
    >As for "twits" (and "vile", etc.), it's typical for liberals to resort
    >to personal insult when the shaky house of cards falls apart. 
    
    Re-read 14.5425, Chris.  Your side lost.  Now who's (whose?) house of 
    cards is shaky?
    

>    schools, or home schooling.  The one alternative that is not open to
>    you is to force every other family who sends their kids to public
>    schools to do everything *your* way.  If you want your kids to go to
>    public schools, then you'll have to learn to compromise some of your
>    ideals.  No big deal -- everyone has to do the same thing.  Welcome to
>    the club, and don't feel so sorry for yourselves.
 

     Oh, OK...so we citizens of these United States release our kids to the
     gubmit and let them do it *their* way, eh?  Those of us who may not be
     able to afford private school, or home schooling are subject to the
     whims of the gubmit to train our kids *their way*.  Keep your mouth
     shut parents, we're the gubmit, and we're here to take care of your kids?





   
    Jim    

    All the Ottawa area Canadian Tire stores are sold out of Thinsulate
    Condoms.

    radial and biased ply?????????

    Freeze willy III?

    .183 et seq:
    
    "...takes a whole village to raise a child."
    
    That also appears to be Lamar Alexander's view.  The things that worked
    50 years ago - busy churches, busy scout troops, tight-knit communities
    and so on - should still work today.  He says, with some degree of
    truth, that we've tried everything else and none of it has worked.

    re: .186
    
    >> If you really don't want your kids to be subjected to whatever you
    >> disapprove of in public schools, you have alternatives, like private
    >> schools, or home schooling.
    
    I've considered these... in my opinion (subject to change, as
    always :-)), home schooling provides an excessively limited social
    experience for the kids; most private schools are far too strongly
    linked to (sometimes extreme) religious organizations.  I would much
    prefer that my kids have the public school experience, as long as
    the schools would stick to what we (the taxpayers and voters,
    ultimately) gave them license to do.
    
    
    >> The one alternative that is not open to
    >> you is to force every other family who sends their kids to public
    >> schools to do everything *your* way.
    
    But... but... this is *exactly* what I object to the school doing. The
    school is forcing something on me that I don't want, and is not
    providing me with any choice in what my kids are/aren't ready for.  I'm
    not trying to prevent kids from getting condoms, I just don't want them
    forced into my kids' faces by the school.  Worst of all, the nature
    of the school beast is to treat everyone the same, and to force their
    policies on all of the children as if they were all the same. They're
    not the same.  I know what's best for my kids at any given point in
    their development.  The school system wants to force everyone to do
    things *their* way.
    
    It's not as if I want them to do "something"... actually, I want
    them to do exactly *nothing*, other than teach their academic subjects.
    The whole problem of "making everyone happy" would go away if the
    schools would just stick to what they're supposed to do.  Then they
    wouldn't have to deal with controversial issues, irate parents on
    both sides, and so on.
    
    
    >> If you want your kids to go to
    >> public schools, then you'll have to learn to compromise some of your
    >> ideals.
    
    I have compromised many of my ideals, most of them in fact, over the
    years, with the schools.  I expect them to compromise in turn, which
    is something they are *most* unaccustomed to (and most unwilling to
    do).  For example, in a single year our school system has rammed
    through a major "progressive" "health" program (with mandatory
    explicit discussion of sexual behavior as early as the first grade,
    with movies, etc.); a major "progressive" report card change that
    makes the "feelgood" crowd quite happy, with almost no definitive grades
    or objective performance criteria; and most recently, a massive worst-case
    re-districting scenario that most parents strongly objected to.
    
    There was no compromise forthcoming from the school department on
    any of these issues.  Compromise has to come from all sides, otherwise
    it's merely a nice way to say "submission".  These days, everyone
    is expected to submit to whatever the school/government wants to do.
    I want some alternatives that recognize that the children are individuals
    with the right to be treated as such (i.e., not all the same).
    
    
    >> So those shy kids are getting some of the benefits of more
    >> easily available condoms in spite of, and in part because of, the
    >> protestations of those who are dead set against kids having easier
    >> access to condoms.  Ain't it funny how these things work sometimes?
    
    And that's fine, really.  But I'm not part of the "dead set against
    kids having easier access to condoms" part.  I just don't want it
    forced on everyone through the schools.  Perhaps this distinction
    puts me in the minority of this "side" of the issue.
    
    Chris

    >The one alternative that is not open to
    >you is to force every other family who sends their kids to public
    >schools to do everything *your* way.  
    
     Which not a single person here has advocated. Thanks for the straw man
    argument.

    re: .189
    
    >> >"Investing in the future" is a good liberal clich�...
    >> 
    >> Your notes in this topic have used just about every paranoid 
    >> conservative clich� I can think of.  P&K, at best.
    
    Paranoid?  You bet... and with good reason.  There's a government
    out there that has made its intentions quite clear regarding its
    "right" to do what they want with our kids, vs. the parents' rights
    to raise them the way we want.  We asked government to give them an
    education, not a series of sociopolitical indoctrinations.
    
    Conservative?  No, at least not in the "religious right" sense.  More
    like "limited government".  A "conservative" (in the stereotypical
    sense) would probably demand that the kids not know anything about
    sex, much less do it, before they're married, and so on.  This is
    not realistic in today's world.  I doubt that a conservative would
    offer to support free condom distribution through Town Hall, as I have.
    
    
    >> >As for "twits" (and "vile", etc.), it's typical for liberals to resort
    >> >to personal insult when the shaky house of cards falls apart. 
    >> 
    >> Re-read 14.5425, Chris.  Your side lost.  Now who's (whose?) house of 
    >> cards is shaky?
    
    I was referring to the debate.  Yes, in real life, as opposed to 'box
    debate, my house of cards has obviously been bulldozed by our friend
    the government.  Note that despite the defeat, I didn't feel the
    need to resort to personal-insult mode, I could still come up with
    something substantive to say.
    
    Chris

>                             most private schools are far too strongly
>    linked to (sometimes extreme) religious organizations.

How many private schools do you need?  Surely there are some in your area
that aren't linked to any religious organization.

    
    .197
    
    >Note that despite the defeat, I didn't feel the
    >need to resort to personal-insult mode, I could still come up with
    >something substantive to say.
    
    Note that, despite the disagreement, I did not insult The Doctah.
    
    You got the best effort I felt your arguments warranted.
    
    Bye.
    

    
    	200 sexy replies.
    

    >> The one alternative that is not open to you is to force every 
    >> other family who sends their kids to public schools to do everything 
    >> *your* way.
    >
    > Which not a single person here has advocated. Thanks for the straw
    > man argument.
    
    Permitting the reactionary parents a veto on the program that the
    school district would otherwise provide to all is just that, Mark.
    
    DougO

    Not at all. If the "reactionary" parents demanded that the program be
    scrapped, then THAT would constitute forcing a minority opinion upon
    the whole. All they wanted to do was prevent their own children from
    participating in the program.

re .201:

Suppose the school district decided that a social studies unit should include
a presentation by the local Grand Dragon.  Some parents object.  Would you
deem them "reactionaries" who are trying to impose their will on all students?

    What if the schools instituted a "health" program whereby children
    could get abortions without their parents' consent?

    re: .199
    
    >> >Note that despite the defeat, I didn't feel the
    >> >need to resort to personal-insult mode, I could still come up with
    >> >something substantive to say.
    >> 
    >> Note that, despite the disagreement, I did not insult The Doctah.
    >> You got the best effort I felt your arguments warranted.
    >> Bye.
    
    As long as you're leaving on that high road, allow me to provide
    a parting thought that the governmental pendulum swings in both
    directions over time, and if you give them too much authority when
    they're on your side, you may be less than pleased when they use
    that foot-in-the-door to do stuff that you don't like.
    
    On the other hand, if you're in Massachusetts, the pendulum has
    a built-in stop somewhere to the left of middle, so you won't have
    to worry about this.
    
    Chris

    
    .205

    >On the other hand, if you're in Massachusetts, the pendulum has
    >a built-in stop somewhere to the left of middle...
    
    I live in Canada.  What goes on up here would curl your nose hairs.
    
    :^)
    

    
    Pretty wild, eh?
    

    
    re: .206
    
    Reminds me of a joke about Canadians....
    
    

    > All they wanted to do was prevent their own children from
    > participating in the program.
    
    It took some tracking down, but by golly, he's right, that's all the
    original parents wanted (see 14.5425.)  
    
    The original court ruling stated that parents had no right to force a
    school district to tailor the programs to suit those parents' moral
    preferences - and the Supreme Court let that ruling stand.
    
    So this is not an issue that the reactionary parents want to deny free
    condom programs for other kids...only for their own.  Granting that the
    parents legitimately don't want their kids having sex - by what stretch
    of the imagination do you think that if the teens are smart enough to
    seek out condoms that they shouldn't get them, when their peers can get
    them at will?  Most 13 year olds, turned down from a school counselor
    "because your parents put your name on the NO CONDOM list" will simply
    get them via another source.  And this is a good thing - I'd far rather
    the kids be using condoms than having unprotected sex.  WHY do people
    want to discourage their kids from such responsible behavior?
    
    DougO

    >a presentation by the local Grand Dragon.  Some parents object.
    
    Haven't spent much time in country, eh?  
    
    Such an event would cause such an uproar that the responsible teacher,
    principal, and school board would be demonstrated against, vilified in
    the national press, and fired, or recalled in short order.  People
    react to the KKK somewhat differently than they do to condoms.
    
    DougO

    
    Not much difference as far as I can tell; in both cases you end
    up with dicks covered with white sheets.
    
    -b

re .210:

Sounds like the reactionaries are in the majority.

re .211:

Agagagagag!

    re: .209
    
    That's the wrong angle, though, thinking that we don't want our
    own kids to have condoms.  At least in my case, my point is that
    I don't want my kids to be exposed to condom distribution until
    I believe that my individual kids are ready for it, and even then
    I'll do it myself, and I'll do it my way, since they're my kids,
    and this is my responsibility as a parent.
    
    For one kid, age 12 is fine; for the other, it's not.  It doesn't
    matter why, it only matters that since I know this to be the case,
    and the school doesn't, I should be the one to say when each of
    my individual kids is presented with this, how it's presented, and
    so on.  Not the school.
    
    Some individual kids are not prepared at age 12 to even be presented
    with such a program, so it isn't even a matter of being on a list,
    it shouldn't even be there in the school with them in the first place.
    
    When each kid is ready, I will give them thorough knowledge,
    availability, opportunity, and so on, but I'll be the one to decide
    that, not the school.
    
    Chris

    Not ready for condoms at age 12?  Some teens are already having sex at
    that age.  Getting them to start using condoms then is just barely in
    time.  You can't "control" that aspect of your kids' lives without
    their voluntary cooperation.  Getting control enforced through a school
    prohibition is counterproductive - it amplifies defiant behavior with
    the thrill of the forbidden.  Kids have genitals.  Teens have raging
    hormones.  If you don't have their voluntary cooperation and
    understanding by age 12 then its simply too late.
    
    DougO

    re: .209
    
    
    12-14 year olds having sex, is not exactly on my list of 'responsible'
    behaviors- whether a condom is used or not.
    
    -steve

    
    	12-14 year olds having sex??
    
    	Quite the orgy for a bunch of young'uns, eh??  You'd think they'd
    	instead play a basketball game, 6 on 6, or something.
    

    I'm still not making myself clear here, I guess.  Of course *some*
    kids are already having sex at age 12.
    
    Others kids don't want to even *hear* about anything sexual at
    age 12.  This is what I need to make clear here.  It doesn't matter
    whether you wish to believe it or not, it's true.
    
    The "control" I'm referring to is *not* control over my kids' sex
    lives!  It's "control" over when/how my kids receive knowledge
    and availability, based on my specific knowledge of the individual
    children, my specific knowledge of what they want and are ready for,
    and so on.
    
    The school does not have this awareness, and yet they want to
    "control" when and how all of this happens to my kids.  This is
    the "control" I want, the control to determine what's best for
    each of my individual kids, control that the school wants to take
    away from me, to the detriment of the kids.
    
    Chris

    When I was in Jr. High, the "fast" kids were already sexually active by
    age 12.   Everyone in the school knew what was going on, but it didn't
    make any "previously undecided" kids want to run out and join in the
    fun.
    
    This was almost twenty years ago.
    
    Lisa

    
    
    yeah... right DougO...
    
    With what technique are you gonna convince a 12-year-old to use a
    condom for his and her own good??
    
    You can't get them to brush their teeth properly or if they have braces
    on their teeth, you can't convince them to NOT eat all the things that
    you know will keep them in braces far longer if they hadn't... (eaten
    the junk)
    
    You are one funny guy!!!

    
    .219

    >With what technique are you gonna convince a 12-year-old to use a
    >condom for his and her own good??
    
    You think a parent can't convince a 12-year-old to use a condom,
    but CAN convince a 12-year-old not to have sex?
    

    re: .219
    
    Try this:
    
    "I don't want to SEE a condom in this house.  I don't want 
    you USING a condom, I don't want you thinking about a condom,
    I don't want you NEAR a single condom until you're 21."
    
    Should be a package in their room in about a week :-)
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

parents and sex in room 222 snarf!

    
    re: .220
    
    Yes !joan... I do... but with much difficulty...
    
    Problem is the mentality of: "What the hell!! Everyone else is doing it
    so why can't I!"
    
    Catch-22 at its finest...

    Chris, you can't control the information that will reach your kids.
    Sure, some 12-year-olds won't be interested in sex.  They aren't likely
    to be the ones asking the school nurse for condoms, though!  So what is
    the issue?  The kids of parents who want the right to restrict their
    kids from getting condoms are still going to be able to get them, even
    if the parents' wishes were to be granted.  This is not about the kids
    who aren't interested in sex- its about the ones who are, and are
    considering going ahead even without protection.  Who DOESN'T want
    THOSE kids to have condoms?
    
    DougO

    The subject of condoms are lost on many kids/children.  Whilst
    stuck at home due to inclement weather I stumbled on one of the
    (too) many garbage talk shows.  Usually I hit NEXT UNSEEN on the
    remote, but this one had me transfixed sort of like being hypnotized
    by a cobra before it lets you have it.
    
    The show had a panel of 12, 13 & 14 year old girls who were very
    open about not using condoms because they wanted to get pregnant!!!!
    One kid's rationale was "I want a baby 'cause all my friends have
    them"!!!!!  Yikes, what can be done with this sort of mentality???
    
    It was interesting to note that their mothers bore them when they
    were the same ages.  Obviously, for this bunch it is far too late
    to try teaching them the merits of birth control; they could care
    less about it.
    
    The girls saw nothing wrong with their plans, and BTW all expected
    their mothers to take care of the babies once they were born!!!
    

    RE: .225

>    The show had a panel of 12, 13 & 14 year old girls who were very
>    open about not using condoms because they wanted to get pregnant!!!!
    ...
>    It was interesting to note that their mothers bore them when they
>    were the same ages.  

    Ouch!  How many of these kids will be living below the poverty line? 
    Phrased another way, how many kids below 15 can support themselves?

    Now, let's assume that each of these kids stops having kids after their
    second and all of their descendents follow suit.  By the time they die
    at age 80, there will be roughly 62 people on this planet that call
    them anscestor.

    If they waited until they were 30 then there would only be 6 people
    calling them ancestor.  If this type of trend continues unchecked then
    the hardworking, tax-paying citizen of this country will be bred into
    the poor house.

    -- Dave

           <<< Note 139.195 by DECWIN::RALTO "Clinto Barada Nikto" >>>

>I would much
>   prefer that my kids have the public school experience, as long as
>    the schools would stick to what we (the taxpayers and voters,
>   ultimately) gave them license to do.
 
	Typically, programs such as these are a result of School Board
	policy. School Boards are elected officials. If the majority of
	voters in the School District do not want such programs in the
	schools, then the Board that initiated the policy would be
	replaced by the electorate. 

	If this has not happened, then either the voters agree with
	the policy, or they do not think it sufficient cause to
	replace the Board.

	Individually, you may not agree with the policy. Once you can 
	garner support of 51% of the electorate to agree with you, the
	mandate for such programs will no longer exist.

Jim

    
    ...which you would think is fairly obvious.  BUT NO...!
    

    .190 you missed the whole point. things are where they are today
    because parents do keep their mouths shut, Jim. parenting, in a large
    part, has become a lost art or an inconvenience. it's not the gov't,
    it's the folks who don't take the time with their child.
    
    someone stated it so well when they said that AIDS made the condom come
    out from behind the counter. that and the epidemic teenage pregnancies.
    
    financially, if something isn't done, medical care costs will continue
    to run rampant, social services costs will continue to either explode
    in the cost category or there will be millions of young mothers and
    children deprived of even the basic necessities. 
    
    these things, Jim are the sins. not doing anything as as equally sinful
    and ridiculously irresponsible.
    
    Chip

    .213 Chris, methinks by the time you realize your kids are ready
         (in all probability) it will be too late. to think they will
         not be exposed to the things that are far more evident and
         common place then when you where their age is taking a fast
         ride on the naive highway.
    
         the really important thing (in my mind) is to expose them to the
         things responsibly, accurately, and with a caring parental presen-
         tation. something they won't get from their peers or even the
         school system.

    ^Individually, you may not agree with the policy. Once you can
    ^garner support of 51% of the electorate to agree with you, the
    ^mandate for such programs will no longer exist.
    
    Though this is very true in American society today, it leaves a bad
    taste in my mouth. It just doesn't seem right to me that the dictates
    of 51% of those voting should allow the 49% who disagree to be force to
    comply. This is a typical win-lose scenario. 

    re: .229
    
>    .190 you missed the whole point. things are where they are today
>    because parents do keep their mouths shut, Jim. parenting, in a large
>    part, has become a lost art or an inconvenience. it's not the gov't,
>    it's the folks who don't take the time with their child.
 
    I think you missed the point Chris has stated so well throughout this
    string.  That point, basically, is: 
    
    Yes, there are parents who will not teach thier kids about sex at the 
    appropriate age (or ever) or about condoms, etc..  However, this is no 
    reason for social programs to be forced on those who do take the time and 
    effort.  In fact, in many cases, the school makes it much harder on
    these parents by either bringing up the subject too early in the
    child's life, or by confusing the parent's message to their kid.
    
    Just because there are irresponsible people, is no reason for those who
    are responsible to forfeit their rights as parents to raise their kids
    as they see fit.
    
    Another point is that schools are to teach academics, not social
    agendas.  Let's leave this inside the realm of politics, and let the
    schools concentrate on that which will best serve the kids best in the 
    future (an actual academic education).
    
    Look at it this way.  If a parent doesn't take the time to set
    boundaries or to educate their child on sexuality, it is likely that that 
    child will do whatever he/she wants, regardless of what the school teaches.
    There are other issues involved in this subject that just the teaching of 
    sex ed.
      
>    financially, if something isn't done, medical care costs will continue
>    to run rampant, social services costs will continue to either explode
>    in the cost category or there will be millions of young mothers and
>    children deprived of even the basic necessities. 
 
    All the more reason to wean such things from the federal level.  We
    can't pay for what we have currently, much less the continuance of an
    11% yearly increase in entitlements.  Until people are held accountable
    for their actions (and parents held accountable for their kids), this
    problem will never go away.
       
>    these things, Jim are the sins. not doing anything as as equally sinful
>    and ridiculously irresponsible.
 
    Parents who do not teach their kids are probably guilty of sins of
    ommision.  However, it is more sinful to allow the government to raise
    your kids, or to suggest that they should indoctrinate kids in the
    social gospel due to the above-mentioned parental neglect.   This point
    is further magnefied by the fact that these social programs inflicted
    on the schools are UNPROVEN, thus we have social experimentation being
    done on our kids by the government (all in the name of 'doing
    something').  This would explain the abysmal record of such experiments, 
    overall.
       
    It is really a matter of what schools are supposed to do (teach
    academics), and what parents are supposed to do (teach morals, ethics,
    etc.).  Each has a public responsibility to do their specific job, and
    the fact that not every parent does thiers is no reason to push this
    responsibility off on the schools.  All this accomplishes is taking up
    valuable time that could be spent on academics, in which case, all
    students lose out.
     
    
    -steve           

       <<< Note 139.232 by DASHER::RALSTON "The human mind is neuter" >>>

    
>    Though this is very true in American society today, it leaves a bad
>    taste in my mouth. It just doesn't seem right to me that the dictates
>    of 51% of those voting should allow the 49% who disagree to be force to
>    comply. This is a typical win-lose scenario. 

	As has been pointed out, the 49% do have other options when it
	comes to education. Not that these are great options, but they
	exist nonetheless.

Jim

    re: .224
    
    >> Chris, you can't control the information that will reach your kids.
    
    Sure I can, at least to some extent, and I have been doing so all
    along.  If the school would just let me do my job, I could control
    it even better.
    
    Yes, I want kids who have sex to use condoms.  No, I don't want the
    school to be the distribution mechanism.  Because (among other things)
    it won't be a nice, cut-and-dry matter of "go to the nurse, get a condom,
    put it in your pocket, and no one else knows about it".  Kids who don't
    want anything to do with this will be exposed to things that some of
    them aren't ready for.
    
    Don't forget the age group... these aren't well-mannered adults we're
    talking about here.  Kids will be doing all sorts of things with
    condoms in the classrooms, hallways, etc.; condoms will be waved in
    the faces of shy girls, and so on.  No, there will be no way for
    non-participants to avoid the matter.
    
    The emphasis from the "government knows best" side is on the kids
    who want/need condoms.  The kids who don't want these are being
    casually dismissed with a wave of the hand and a snort.  The parents
    of the kids who don't want this in their learning environment are
    being trashed.
    
    Let's look at the workplace.  We've pretty much sanitized the
    workplace, haven't we... in the workplace, people who don't want
    to be exposed to sexual discussion/jokes/invitations/harassment/etc.
    in the workplace are pretty solidly protected from it.  No Bucket
    O' Condoms in the Digital conference rooms.
    
    Why can't we similarly respect the rights of children who don't feel
    comfortable about being exposed to sexual matters in school?
    
    The kids who want or need these can get them from other places.  For
    the kids who don't want to be exposed sexual matters should have just
    as much right to a sex-free place of education as Digital employees
    have to a sex-free workplace.
    
    Chris

    >> 	If this has not happened, then either the voters agree with
    >> 	the policy, or they do not think it sufficient cause to
    >> 	replace the Board.
    
    Of course... this hasn't happened in my town yet.  I've listed
    the things that *have* happened in my town in the last year, and
    I have no doubt that much/all of the board will be replaced in
    the next election.
    
    But sometimes, that's too late.  Some programs are extremely
    difficult or impractical to un-do once they're done, and the
    boards know it.  We've seen a lot of "in-your-face, we're gonna
    do it anyway" behavior from the school/government, and it will
    be extremely hard to go back on some of the changes that they've
    forced upon us, even after we get rid of them.
    
    Chris

    re: .233
    
    Good note, thanks, you've hit the heart of the matter more concisely
    than my ramblings.  I'm clearly running out of steam here, babbling
    on about condoms being waved in girls' faces :-), so I think I need
    to pass the baton...
    
    Chris

            <<< Note 139.236 by AMN1::RALTO "Clinto Barada Nikto" >>>

>    But sometimes, that's too late.  Some programs are extremely
>    difficult or impractical to un-do once they're done, and the
>    boards know it.  We've seen a lot of "in-your-face, we're gonna
>    do it anyway" behavior from the school/government, and it will
>    be extremely hard to go back on some of the changes that they've
>    forced upon us, even after we get rid of them.
 
	If the Board says stop, it will stop. They set the policy.

	You need to elect a Board that promises to say stop.

	If you can't do this, then it is just possible that saying
	stop is not as high on the priority list for the majority
	of your community as it is for you.

Jim

re: 139.224, "...you can't control the information that will reach
your kids."

I agree that it can't be controlled, but parents should have the
ability to exercise some control over that which *is* controllable,
and what schools do (and endorse, by the way) is certainly
controllable.

In our home we do not tune in to the garbage television that is
growing every day, those new-name talk shows that serve only to shock
and elicit ratings and drool. As parents, we do not allow that to be
viewed in our house, as we do not allow neighborhood kids to swear
openly, and attempt tp control what we can. Our children are brought
up to understand why we do these things, and to respect our wishes as
we respect theirs. They know what is out there, and they know what we
like and do not like, and what is allowed and is not allowed.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I roll over to schools who think
they have any dominion in any area other than traditional education.
They have done a poor enough job at that and have enough to do to get
back to a reasonable level of performance.

Sorrt for the rambling,
Pete

    naw Steve, i didn't miss a thing. your argument about the cost impact
    doesn't hold water either. if you're waiting for the majority of the
    parenting population to experience great epithany you're in for a long
    wait. it won't get better. it won't heal itself.
    
    i agree it isn't a root cause solution, but it's out of the tree tops
    and is making its way toward the trunk. 
    
    ...and i don't  think this program is being forced down anyone's
    throats. if it is, i'm missing it.
    
    Chip

    Re. .190
    
    > Oh, OK...so we citizens of these United States release our kids to the
    > gubmit and let them do it *their* way, eh?  Those of us who may not be
    > able to afford private school, or home schooling are subject to the
    > whims of the gubmit to train our kids *their way*.  Keep your mouth
    > shut parents, we're the gubmit, and we're here to take care of your kids?
    
    Not at all...  What I'm saying is:  You ARE the gubmit
    
    And so are all the rest of us.  And you have only 1 vote, just like all
    the rest of us.
    
    And even that doesn't count if you decide you want to do something
    unconstitutional.
    
    That's all.

    Re. many
    
    I can remember well how it felt to talk to our kids about sex for the
    first time.  Of course it was we, the parents, who were not ready, more
    than our kids.  We weren't ready for them to make that giant step
    toward adulthood at that young age.  To them it was no big deal.  
    
    Other than that, sex was just like any other topic with
    the kids -- if they heard about it too early, they had little interest
    in it, but they still remembered much of what we told them, and it
    certainly did them no harm.  Just about like any subject in school.  
    But we were leery of the idea at first, as I'm sure most parents are.
    
    Since sex is a biological fact of life, and there is a life-and-death 
    public  health interest in having people learn early how to avoid its
    dangers, and since many parents will not teach kids enough about sex to
    be useful, it seems quite reasonable to me that schools should teach
    kids about it, teach how to use condoms, and even make condoms available 
    to those kids who can't or won't get them elsewhere.  I don't mean
    handing them out in quantity, just making them available.
    
    And yes they should also, even first, point out that abstinence is the
    most effective means of avoiding problems.  But if they stop there,
    they might as well do nothing at all.  
    
    Sex is not an immoral activity.  It is a biological activity. 
    Deciding when and under what circumstances to have sex is for some a
    matter of religious or moral preference, which they are welcome to
    teach kids about at home or in church.
    
    But I have no more sympathy or agreement for those who would like to
    prevent schools from teaching kids about sex than I have for those who
    would like to prevent schools from teaching about evolution.  
    

    It's not really about teaching kids about sex.  It is about the failed
    philosophy of "since some kids' parents won't teach them about sex and
    responsibility, it is up to the schools to do it".  This fails for two
    reasons.
    
    1) In many instances, school teaching are ill-timed or confuse the
    parents' teachings on this subject.  
    
    2) Though it is a biological fact of life, when and if you have sex is
    still a moral issue to many people, and schools should stay away from
    moral issues.  
    
    Just because some parents are irresponsible, is no reason to step on
    the toes of those who ARE responsible.  IMO, this is just one area
    where government- due to whatever "emergency" reason is convenient-
    usurps the rights of parents.  This is unacceptable logic within this form
    of government.
    
    
    -steve

    i'm still at a loss as to how people see this as the gov't stepping
    on people's toes. this isn't a "Force A Kid To Take A Condom" program.
    
    at a million babies being born to high school students a year (don't
    what the disease rate is) i'd say there is a substantial problem that
    parenting population is in some state of disrepair. generally speaking,
    of course. 

    <-- Maybe not, but parents cannot opt their kids out of such
    give-a-ways.  Parental authority is overruled by government intrusion
    (because gubmint know what's best for your kids).
    
    Just because some people do not meet their responsibilities as parents
    is NOT good enough reason for those who ARE responsible to loose their
    right to teach their children without
    conflicting/unwanted/ill-timed/etc. messages being taught
    (to this captive audience) by gubmint authorities.
    
    This point seems to be ignored (or these rights surrendered, perhaps) in the
    name of some generic "societal good".  I remind you that this
    philosophy is at the root of many of our current problems and 
    stupid policies.  Surrendering rights and/or control, in any area, for
    some perceived (and untested) "good" program, is VERY dangerous.  Even
    the most innocent looking programs can be used as a wedge to separate
    you from your rights.
    
    
    
    -steve 

    -1 ya they can. they CAN opt their kids out in a number of ways. they'd
       just rather piss and moan about it instead.

    That's not what the court said.

    what did they say, specifically?

    The parent could not keep their kids from getting condoms at school,
    basically.

    Steve,
    
    these parents still have options, the biggest one being teaching their
    kids that they don't need condoms if they don't engage in activity
    which requires them.  They were not handed out at  pep rally, they are
    available for a kid that requests same.  
    
    I consider this right up there with allowing/not allowing children who
    have not been immunized to attend school in an area where thre has been
    an outbreak of a preventable  (by vaccine) disease.  These
    nonvaccinated children are a danger to my kids, as many of the vaccines
    are about 80% effective, and some  the parents of these kids are up in
    arms when their kids are sent home from a public school because of
    choices they made around immunizing their kids.  If I had it my way the
    only reason to allow children in public schools who have not been
    immunized would be for medical reasons, but that infringes on the
    rights of parents to belong to idiot religions that trust in god to
    prevent a bacteria or virus from attacking their little darlings.  
    
    meg

           <<< Note 139.250 by CSC32::M_EVANS "cuddly as a cactus" >>>

>    these parents still have options, the biggest one being teaching their
>    kids that they don't need condoms if they don't engage in activity
>    which requires them.  They were not handed out at  pep rally, they are
>    available for a kid that requests same.  
 
	Can someone confirm that the condoms are available on a request
	basis?

	This would seem to change the direction of this discussion for
	Steve at least, who had no objection to condoms being available
	for purchase by minors.

Jim

    >Can someone confirm 
    
    not precisely.  See 14.5425, the original post, which indicates that
    students receive condoms "from the school nurse".  One might presume
    that they must request them first, but perhaps the nurse tackles them
    in the hallway and forces condoms upon them.
    
    DougO
    
    ps - at times, my own phrasing, as in the last two words above, is
    unfortunate, and gives me pause.

             <<< Note 139.252 by SX4GTO::OLSON "DBTC Palo Alto" >>>
>    ps - at times, my own phrasing, as in the last two words above, is
>    unfortunate, and gives me pause.

	I probably would have missed it had you not pointed out the wording,
	but NOW I have this image of a large number of pubescent boys
	loitering in the hal outside the nurses's office.

	;-)

Jim

Sign on the front of nurse's office door:

  "ENTER HERE FOR SEX INSTRUCTION"

bet it would be a busy place.

    
    	When I was in grade school, our school nurse was quite unattractive
    	and VERY large.
    
    	Even if I had known what a condom was at the time, I wouldn't
    	have wanted to have 1 anywhere near her.
    

    >        but NOW I have this image of a large number of pubescent boys
    >        loitering in the hal outside the nurses's office.
    
    Yeah, but you oughtta see the nurse...
    
    Seriously though, here's a little something for those who think
    education (of which condom distribution is just one example) doesn't
    work:
    
    From one of the wire services:
    
    	"Atlanta -- Ameria's teen-age birth rate dropped for the 
    	second year in a row, the government said Thursday.
    
    	Stephanie Ventura, a statistician at the Centers for Disease
    	Control, said the reasons for the drop aren't clear, but she
    	speculated that more teen-agers are using condoms because of
    	the risk of AIDS.
    
    	The birth rate among American teen-agers dropped 2 percent in
    	1993, the most recent year examined by the CDC.  The rate fell
    	2 percent in 1992.
    
    	The figures mark a reversal of the sharp increases in the late
    	1980s, when the birth rate among teens jumped 5 percent or 
    	more a year.
    
    Personally, I would credit many things:
    
    	Easier availability of condoms
    
    	Getting the "abstinence" message across
    
    	Getting information of all sorts out to both kids and parents about
    	sex and about the consequences of irresponsible sex.
    
    Doing almost anyting will do some good.  The only thing that is
    guaranteed to fail is doing nothing.  Like the bumper sticker says, "If
    you think education is expensive, try ignorance".

I remember being young and it being embarrassing to purchase a condom. 
You would have to ask the person behind the drugstore counter and if that person
wasn't the druggist she or he would get him. Now you had to ask again, as a line 
formed behind you. Because of the line, the noise level would be higher so the 
druggist would ask you to please speak up. Of course now everyone could hear and 
one of the people in line always seemed to be a neighbor.

Having to ask the nurse would have been a breeze.

Douglas Adams has an amusing story to tell about trying to purchase condoms
in the PRC.

Yeah, but these days they're not behind the counter, and they're not just in
drugstores.

    
    They're not just for breakfast anymore.
    

>Yeah, but these days they're not behind the counter, and they're not just in
>drugstores.

I know, isn't that great. But, I have to admit, it is much less funny.

Gerald makes an interesting point.

It's probably substantially easier today (i.e. less embarassing) for a 
kid to get  a condom through the normal distribution channels, than
it is to get it from the school nurse (who might know their parents.)

The easier the better, IMO

    We used to make 'em out of old inner tubes, back in the days before
    tubeless tires were invented.

    We used to make 'em out of sheep guts, back in the days before inner
    tubes were invented.

        Bought my first condom in Glasgow as a young teenager in the
        early '60s when the Durex company was experimenting with
        individually fitted sizes.
        
        Guy two in front of me went to the counter where the female
        assistant asked him to put his penis on the counter - she tugged
        on it three times and called back; "Marge, condoms, package of
        three, size 11 please!"
        
        Next guy went up and laid it out, she tugs three times; "Marge,
        condoms package of three, size 15 please!"
        
        My turn; "Marge, condoms, package of three, size 9 and a handful
        of Kleenex please!"
        
        

    So, she was going to stuff the kleenex in the ends?

    
    	I wonder if cavemen used to carve them out of stone, back before
    	ANYTHING was invented.
    

    Ah yes, the very popular basalt condom.

    The women of today would take such thing for granite.

    Isn't Basalt faulty? 

    
    	Sire gives new meaning to the phrase "hard as a rock".
    

    Colin, do you supplty a Manuel with your jokes?

    Colin, your wit towers over mine.

    I'm not known for my supplty.

        A response worthy of the Sybils.
        

    > I don't think it is the most expedient situation, por jemplo, 
    > to have a dad instruct a doughter how to insert a tampon.
    
    So is that the extent of what you and your wife will tell your daughter
    about the "facts of life"?
    
    What else are you planning for her to learn from her parents, and how
    much of that will YOU tell her, Pop?

 Z   > I don't think it is the most expedient situation, por jemplo, 
 Z   > to have a dad instruct a doughter how to insert a tampon.
        
 Z   So is that the extent of what you and your wife will tell your
 Z   daughter about the "facts of life"?
    
    Oh...this is real rich I'll say.  The perfect example of an emotional
    reply from somebody who doesn't believe in the death penalty.  You were
    probably one of those freaks who protested at the Seabrook Power Plant
    too.  
    
    Read below.  It is taken from .4976.  
    
   Z     I have already started
   Z     reading books geared to a seven year old regarding reproduction and
   Z     have every intention of discussing EVERYTHING with both my sons. 
   Z     Michele will have the direct and sobering facts for Audrey when she
   Z     reaches an age of reason.
    
    In other words, Audrey is two years old you schmuck!  It is commonplace
    for sex educators to seperate girls from boys in teaching at young ages.
    While I could certainly teach Audrey the facts of life without batting
    an eyelash, I would like to be considerate of a young girls comfort
    zone in having dad explain such matters in an overt sort of way.
    
    -Jack

>        <<< Note 56.5009 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>    While I could certainly teach Audrey the facts of life without batting
>    an eyelash, I would like to be considerate of a young girls comfort
>    zone in having dad explain such matters in an overt sort of way.

	Yes, that part about the stork can get a little scary.

    
    	And a baby could get hurt pretty badly if [s]he lands the
    	wrong way in the cabbage patch.
    

    >In other words, Audrey is two years old you schmuck!
    
    Didn't you say, "...when she reaches an age of reason"?
    
    >It is commonplace for sex educators to seperate girls from boys
    >in teaching at young ages.
    
    Well there!  Then you have to do that too, yes?
    
    >While I could certainly teach Audrey the facts of life without
    >batting an eyelash,
    
    Sounds like, "I can quit any time I want!".
    
    >I would like to be considerate of a young girls comfort zone
    >in having dad explain such matters in an overt sort of way.
    
    Translation:  "I would like to be considerate of Dad's comfort
    zone in having to explain such matters in an overt sort of way."
    
    I think you have answered my question (Is Dad going to talk to
    daughter about the facts of life?) very clearly:  "NO!"
    
    So you and your wife are going to teach your boys and girl a
    two separate versions of the facts of life?  That's interesting.
    Why do you think that is a good idea?
    

    
    
    	FWIW
    
    	My mother talked to me and my father talked to my brother.
    	However, we were both given the same set of books to read
    	after "the talk" (the talk was given to us a couple years
    	apart - he's 3.5 years younger than me).  
    
    	I see nothing wrong with dad talking to the boys and mom
    	talking to the girls.  Just as long and the correct and full
    	information gets across to both.
    

    
    The big issue is whether some politically correct nitwit will accuse
    fathers of "abuse". Some fathers are even afraid of bathing their baby
    daughters after some scare stories in the meedja.

    
    	My mother used to bathe me.
    
    	If she were worth a substantial amount I'd probably consider
    	suing her, but who wants a cockatiel and an '89 Olds 88?
    

    Well, which is it? An 89 or an 88?

    
    	It was in an accident, and it's now a combination of an '88
    	and an '89.  They joined the halves right down the middle.
    
    	The left half is fron an '88 and the right half is from an '89.
    

ZZ    Didn't you say, "...when she reaches an age of reason"?
  
Yeah...So?  I guess I'm not following what the potential problem is here.  

    >It is commonplace for sex educators to seperate girls from boys
    >in teaching at young ages.
    
ZZ    Well there!  Then you have to do that too, yes?
  
Errrr...yeah...that's what I mentioned twice?  Greg and Andrew will be taught 
about sex by yours truly and Audrey will be taught about sex by Michele.  Again
I am trying to understand what the problem is here.

    >While I could certainly teach Audrey the facts of life without
    >batting an eyelash,
    
ZZ    Sounds like, "I can quit any time I want!".
    
    >I would like to be considerate of a young girls comfort zone
    >in having dad explain such matters in an overt sort of way.
    
ZZ    Translation:  "I would like to be considerate of Dad's comfort
ZZ    zone in having to explain such matters in an overt sort of way."
  
And of course you are inferring here that I am chicken, that I wouldn't be able
to perform such a feat!  I find this humorous considering my outspokenness in 
the file.  If I have the bazongazz to tell strangers in notes that their 
voting records identify them as pure boobs, misfits, social retards, and the 
like, then how in God's name could I have a difficult time telling my children
of the beauty and blessings of a healthy sex life?  Fear not, details don't 
concern me.  
  
ZZ    I think you have answered my question (Is Dad going to talk to
ZZ    daughter about the facts of life?) very clearly:  "NO!"
  
Correct.  In matters of understanding, it is sometimes equally important who 
the messenger is as well as the message.  I will get involved if need be and
I would answer any questions if she is strong enough to ask me; however, I 
find her mother to be well qualified in such matters.
  
ZZ    So you and your wife are going to teach your boys and girl a
ZZ    two separate versions of the facts of life?  That's interesting.
ZZ    Why do you think that is a good idea?
  
Well, you are making this sound like unequal segregation and this is certainly 
not the case.  Simply put, there is information more applicable to the 
seperate genders and there are certain things Andrew and Gregory do not need 
to know that are beneficial to Audrey and vice versa.  This is just common 
sense.  Talk to any competent sex therapist and they will concur with me in 
this way of thinking.

-Jack

    Let's ask Meg....she knows about these things.
    
    Meg, what do you think.  Is our planned methodology inequitable?

    >I see nothing wrong with dad talking to the boys and mom
    >talking to the girls.  Just as long and the correct and full
    >information gets across to both.
    
    For some parts of the facts of life, Dad definitely needs to
    talk to the boys, and Mom to the girls.  But there is great
    value in Mom also talking to the boys and Dad to the girls.
    No matter how much you try to get the same message to both
    genders of kids, you won't do it, and there is valuable
    learning in a little cross-gender information exchange.
    
    Even Mom and Dad can learn something from listening to each
    other talking to both gender kids.
    
    I was just curious to see what he would say, how uptight he
    is about talking about sex to his daughter when she is old
    enough, and he got angry, which says something in itself.
    

    >there are certain things Andrew and Gregory do not need to know 
    >that are beneficial to Audrey and vice versa.
    
    This is what I was trying to get at.  OK, I'll bite, can you give
    an example of each:  things boys don't need to know about sex that
    girls do need to know, and things girls don't need to know about 
    sex that boys do need to know?
    

    what do dads talk to sons about in the way of sex?

    Z    I was just curious to see what he would say, how uptight he
    Z    is about talking about sex to his daughter when she is old
    Z    enough, and he got angry, which says something in itself.
    
    Angry....scuse me sir???  Could anybody who saw me getting angry please
    raise their hand??!  Anybody???
    
    Didn't think so!

    jack,
    
    both Frank and I discuss things freely in our household.  Probably
    comes from the fact that our kids were born at home, with the other
    siblings as witnesses and I also labor sit with families.  they have
    been exposed to what birth is, discussions of how kids get started, how
    to prevent same, and that no one loves you if they don't take your
    safety into consideration as well as their own in sexual matters.  
    
    
    The middle chid has quite a story on wonderful womanhood, as well in
    her girl scout handbook, and numerous books around the house,
    including, but not limited to "Our Bodies Ourselves", "Spiritual
    Midwifery", and a batch of touchy-feely books on sexuality and maturing
    that would probably be too pagan for you.  They aren't dragged out and
    shoved into faces, but are available and on an open shelf for anyone to
    grab and read when they wish.  My oldest was told by me when she
    started dating that our Dr is available in strictest confidence for any
    information she needed on contraception, and was also told she could
    have the price of an exam at the local clinic with no questions asked.  
    when she hit that age, along with several other single members of my
    family, condoms were also descreetly dropped into x mas stockings,
    there again with no questions asked on usage or need to use.  Questions
    are encouraged and answered honestly, no matter which parent is asked. 
    
    I think if you are asked any question, including what tampons are for,
    you should be able to answer them.  I also think if your child comes
    home and says she or he has no interest in the opposite sex, that after
    you swallow hard, you get in touch with Pflag or another group before
    you say too much.  
    
    meg 

>    what do dads talk to sons about in the way of sex?

	In Jack's case, he'll prolly start out,

	"Son, remember when you were little and you blurted out
	the words 'body dance' and I nearly had an aneurysm?  Well,
	let me see if I can explain why...".

    > what do dads talk to sons about in the way of sex?
    
    How to get girls.  ;-)

    no, really.  does the subject of masturbation come
    up?  or is it swept under the rug until the kid gets
    caught in the bathroom?  i guess protection would be 
    the major topic. 

    I wish I still had the crude pencil drawing that my father drew as
    an accompanying illustration for "the talk" that I demanded without
    advance warning one fine weekend afternoon when I was around 10,
    that sent my mother and her sister scurrying out of the house until
    it was safe to return.
    
    Chris

    I got caught on the step ladder.

    I thought you said it was a fish ladder.

    Oh, I could never scale one of those!

    My folks never discussed sex with me. Pretty much fumbled my way
    through, really. I asked this question one evening while at the pub. A
    large group of friends, and out of the 12 people who were there, only 1
    person had, recieved some sort of sexual prep talk from their folks.
    Strange is it not!!
    
    Stevo

    I told both kids at one time (boy and girl) about basic sex facts,
    including masturbation, including the fact that that is OK to do, and
    lots of other general stuff.  My wife was there and she contributed a
    whole bunch of information too, but obviously from a different point of
    view.
    
    Both kids were interested in everything, and that was only the start of
    it.  We all had many other discussions later, some all together, some
    Pop to Son, some Mom to Daughter, some Pop to Daughter, some Mom to
    Son, and some Pop to Mom (disagreements, "I didn't know that", etc.).
    
    It amazing how much you can learn from, or because of, your kids.
    

    I was told that if I didn't stop I would turn into a sex fiend. My
    brother was told he would go blind and/or become effeminate.

     Z   This is what I was trying to get at.  OK, I'll bite, can you give
     Z   an example of each:  things boys don't need to know about sex that
     Z   girls do need to know, and things girls don't need to know about 
     Z   sex that boys do need to know?
    
    Stephen, For example, Audrey does NOT need to know why Andrew may wake
    up with a woodie sometimes.  Audrey does not need to know why young men
    are inclined to play with their hooters...it just isn't necessary for
    her to know these things right now.
    
    Greg and Andrew do not need to know where G Spots are, they don't need
    to understand why Audrey may have cramps at certain times of the month.
    These things aren't hush hush but they are of a personal nature to a
    young lady.  I think this has everything to do with respecting the
    privacy of a young girl who may get embarrassed about such things with
    male figures in her life.
    
    -Jack

    >My folks never discussed sex with me. 
    
    Mine either.  They didn't even provide books, except for some stupid
    things that dealt with birds and bees literally.  Nothing about human
    beings.
    
    But no problem.  There is always a wealth of information out there on
    the street, in school, in libraries, and on TV.  Personally, I
    discovered things like "Marriage Manuals" in libraries and bookstores. 
    This was back in the late 50s.  
    
    Problem with all that was that I learned things from my friends like
    men are supposed to beat up women to keep 'em in line.  I love to know
    how that kid's parents ended up.  And how to "get" women, and that the
    entire purpose of life for a guy was to get laid.  Unfortunately my
    parents could lecture at a distance about right and wrong in very
    general terms, could call my girlfriends sluts if they went parking
    with me, but could never otherwise bring themselves to talk about the
    subject.
    
    Like they say, when it comes to your kids' learning about sex, you have
    only one choice open to you, and that is whether or not you wish to
    participate in their learning process.

    Like I said a few notes back, not having my folks ist down and discuss
    things in great detail. Nothing was every hidden. And again, I was like
    the last reply, happy enough discusing these things with guy, and girl
    friends.
    
    I guess I am/was luck having open friends, and being pretty open
    myself.
    
    Stevo

     Z   when she hit that age, along with several other single members of my
     Z   family, condoms were also descreetly dropped into x mas stockings,
    
    Well, I guess you're right...this would be too radical for me.  But
    thanks for taking the time to post what you did. 
    
    Perhaps I may find discussions with Audrey to be quite easy.  I haven't
    had the experience yet so I can only conjecture.  Let's just say I
    would prefer to start with small steps so as to respect young daughters
    sense of propriety.  Some young ladies are like that while others want
    to hear everything! :-)

       Z     "Son, remember when you were little and you blurted out
       Z     the words 'body dance' and I nearly had an aneurysm?  Well,
       Z     let me see if I can explain why...".
    
    .5025 deleted for insult!  FOUL....FOUL!!!!!!!!!

    Ick.  I dread having this conversation with my daughter.  At least
    she's only 2.8 years old.

Gay Issues, people, Gay Issues!

    Okay, I'm afraid if my wife talks to the boys about sex they may decide
    to become gay.  That's the real truth here.
    
    Is that better?? :-)

So how about moving this to 139?

    >Audrey does NOT need to know why Andrew may wake up with a woodie
    >sometimes.  Audrey does not need to know why young men are
    >inclined to play with their hooters...it just isn't necessary
    >for her to know these things right now.
    
    Now come on -- you keep throwing in references to her age now 
    (2 did you say), but then you talk about when she reaches "an age
    of reason", which presumably is something more than 2.  So let's
    assume she will be 13 some day.  Do you think she still doesn't
    need to know about woodies when she is 13?  Or about why boys will
    be fascinated with her developing breasts?  What will you do if
    she asks -- refuse to talk about it, or refer her to Mom, or what?  
    What if she asks now, or when she is, say, 6?
        
    >Greg and Andrew do not need to know where G Spots are
    
    Ever?  Are you talking about right now, or are you saying you and
    you wife will never talk to them about such things?
    
    >they don't need to understand why Audrey may have cramps at certain 
    >times of the month.  These things aren't hush hush but they are of 
    >a personal nature to a young lady.  I think this has everything to 
    >do with respecting the privacy of a young girl who may get
    >embarrassed about such things with male figures in her life.
    
    So you are planning to raise a generation of kids in ignorance of
    the sexual workings of the opposite gender?  Or are you still
    talking about "at this age"?
    

    Yeah, sorry to go off subject.  139 would be good for the whole thread.

    I am talking about this age only.  As the kids get older, no doubt more
    involved questions will be posed to me.  Audrey at the age of 13
    doesn't need, nor will she ask me, her dad why kids her age of the male
    gender wake up with woodies in the morning!

    .303
    
    you're kidding, right?

    >I am talking about this age only.  As the kids get older, no doubt
    >more involved questions will be posed to me.  Audrey at the age of 13
    >doesn't need, nor will she ask me, her dad why kids her age of the
    >male  gender wake up with woodies in the morning!
    
    I read that twice, but I don't understand if you are saying:
    
    	A. If the subject of why boys wake up with woodies come up
    	   you will tell Audrey why, 
    or
    	B. You plan never to tell her the answer to that question.
    
    Would you answer the question if Audrey asked you?
    
    Would you tell you boys about period if they ask you?

    no, I'm serious.

    Did you fall off?

    Thta's inventive.  I was only supposed to go blind and burn in hell.

 ZZ   Would you answer the question if Audrey asked you?
    
    Yes, and I wouldn't have any problem telling her.  As I said a few
    replies back, she would have to ask rather than me being proactive is
    telling her. 
        
 ZZ       Would you tell you boys about period if they ask you?
    
    Absolutely.  A period is something clinical and should be conveyed as a
    scientific fact.  I'll just tell them there is a person with the node
    "BIGQ" in Soapbox who gets them twice a month but the effects last
    about three weeks!

    .318 & .320
    
    that is truly appalling.

    Who said that?
     

    
    Jack,

    I'll bet you start talking about sex to your daughter within two
    years.

    Dogs have puppies, cats have kittens, cows have calves, etc.  This is
    sex education.  It tougher when kids find two dogs copulating in your
    front yard.  But, only for you, its not tough for them.  There is no
    "talk".  It's a lifelong conversation.  

    My kid and I listen to "Dr. Laura" on the radio from time-to-time. 
    There is a lot of talk about sex, but its the if-only-I-had-known kind
    of talk.  It helps make the seriousness of sex, both the rewards and the
    consequences, real.  We have some of our best conversations afterwards. 
    BTW, I do mean conversations, she is talking half the time (OK, she's a
    teen-ager, it's more than half).  

    Recently, I got a sample in the mail of some new feminine napkins.  I
    gave them to my daughter saying I don't know why they sent them to
    me, when she was the one who used them.  She opened the package up and
    checked them out and said, "Cool.  Look at how this keeps them in
    place.  Thanks."  Was I embarrassed?  No, I was proud that she felt we
    could talk about those things.  

    Or as my neice says, "If you would have told me that I could walk
    around for half a day with baby poop on my arm and not freak out when I
    found it, I would have thought you crazy.  Kids do that to you."
    

  I found a package of condoms in the street once, when I was about
  7 or 8.  I brought them in to my mother.  She said she would tell
  me what they were when I was older.  She lied.



  Isn't that a nice story?

    I remeber when I was about 9 or 10, asking my older sisters boyfriend
    what condoms were. When he said it was a means of protection against
    pregnancy etc, I thought he was pulling my leg. I thought it would be
    something much more interesting.
    
    Not too sure who was more embarrassed, my sister or him. Did not like
    him much anyway.
    
    Stevo 

    i was 11, on my way to the corner store to pick up
    some kitty food.  this guy pulls over and motions
    me to the passenger side of the car.  he asks me 
    where a certain hospital is.  i could see why he
    needed to go to a hospital, because he was holding
    himself and it was livin' large.  i told him i didn't
    know the directions to the hospital and walked quickly
    to the store.
    
    mom said he was a very sick man.  

    > She lied. ...  Isn't that a nice story?
    
    No, but very familiar to me personally, and very commonplace here in
    America the Home of the Uptight.
    

    I have a story like that, but I was 19, and I didn't tell my mom.

   Well, actually, in defense of my mother, I'm sure she just forgot
   all about it later.  But yeah, my parental units were definitely
   close-mouthed on the whole sex issue, ooh er, etc.

    oh, and then mom called up arthur, our next door neighbor,
    because he was at home that day.  arthur was an ex-marine.
    arthur drove around woostah with me and my friend cindy,
    looking for this guy.  there was a rifle in the back seat.
    we never found the guy.  quite an adventure.

    .304
    
    Jack,
    
    What is the worse thing that could happen if you told your children why
    one has cramps and the other gets a woodie?
    

    Nancy:
    
    Nothing really...I just figured the birds and the bees is kind of like
    Karate...you hit certain degrees before you move on to other issues (no
    pun intended :-))  
    
    Now if I sat there wih Audrey explaining why Andrew may get a woodie
    four times a week, I figure at age 13 she will be going through her own
    growing pains in life and this isn't something she necessarily needs to
    know at age 13.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    If you aren't comfortable and safe with your own human sexuality, then
    you cannot be comfortable with expressing the "facts" about it to your
    children.  
    
    Nancy :-)

    Oh goodness...Glen was right.  I am uncomfortable with my own
    sexuality! :-)
    
    Actually, I'm just trying to determine at what age information should
    be given.  For example, you can go into a Christian book catalog and
    order books on the facts of life...taylored for ages 4,5,6,7,8,etc. 
    All different books taylored for the specific age.
    
    

    When kids ask, I don't care what age they are, you tell 'em.  To
    determine for yourself that at age 4 you're going over the chicken and
    egg analogy is counterproductive to the child's development.  A need to
    know, doesn't mean when she/he goes through puberty, a need to know is
    when they become curious.  
    
    This curiousity will be determined by several factors;
    
    1.  Pregnancy in the home.
    2.  Pregnancy in the home of a friend.
    3.  Movies viewed.
    4.  Peer to peer chatter.
    5.  The Christmas story, "Mom what is a virgin?"
    
    There will typically be something that will spark a pre-pubescent
    conversation.
    
    

    Taking someone (anyone) else's word for when to tell your kids things
    is the last thing you want to do.
    
    There is really only one person who knows when a kid needs to know
    something, and that is the kid.  The best clue you'll ever get is if
    they start asking questions about a subject, that means it is time to
    talk about it.
    
    You don't have to dump it all on them at once, but if you respond
    openly and honestly and freely whenever they DO have questions, then
    they'll learn to trust you and keep coming back with the rest of their
    questions as they develop.
    
    Our kids still are quite open with us about their sex lives as well as
    everything, and they are both in the 20s now.
    
    But with young kids there is a window for things, before which they
    won't care or listen or retain much if you decide it is time to tell
    them about sex, and after which they won't want to talk to you about
    it.  The only way to get to participate in their sex education, or drug
    education, or any other kind of education, is be there when they need
    you for as much as they need you, and be trustworthy.  Don't clam up
    because you're embarrassed, or they may never ask you again.
    
    And each kid is an individual.  You can't take some book, Christian or
    otherwise, that claims to be just right for an 8-year-old, and dump it
    on your 8-year-old.  Some 8-year-olds are way past that in maturity,
    and some are behind it.  Best thing is always to establish an
    individual relationship with each kid and take it from there.  And
    books are a distant 2nd best to your own words anyway.

    >>Making children feel shame and guilt, or otherwise feel diminished
    >>in their worth as human beings, damages them and damages their
    >>relationship with you.
    
    >This is the same PC bullcrap which says that rewarding achievment and
    >punishing failure (in school or sports, for example) damages children.
    
    The two are nothing alike.  Obviously.  Open your mind just a crack,
    willya...
    
    Rewarding people for good performance has a positive effect on them.
    Punishing people for violations of rules (within the bounds of reason
    and humanity) also has a good effect on them.
    
    On the other hand, making people, especially kids, feel lower than
    whale excrement is mean spirited and destructive, even though it may
    be a grand old tradition in certain popular religions I can think of.
    
    >The truth is that pointing out right and wrong builds character and
    >gives children the ability to DO right instead of wrong.
    
    Obviously.  And just as obviously, this is not in conflict with what
    I said.
    

    >Nonsense. What is a person with no sense of shame or guilt? A
    >sociopath, that's what.
    
    You are trying to say that children will never feel any sense of
    shame or guilt unless their parents go out of their way to load 'em
    up with those feelings.  That is patent nonsense.  Children feel
    very keenly feelings of shame or guilt just from a parental facial
    expression or even from a carefully constructed criticism.  Children
    naturally feel bad about themselves readily and deeply all the time.
    
    The last thing kids need is parents heaping more such feelings on
    them.  What parents need to do is to make sure that kids know that
    it is their ACTIONS, not themselves that are being criticized or
    corrected, and that they are still the wonderful people they always
    have been.  They will still feel bad, but they will respond in very
    positive ways to your showing them such respect.
    
    Think about how you would present criticism to your boss or to a
    co-worker (outside the box that is), in order to preserve your
    good relationship with them (assuming you have one).  This is
    what you want to do with your own children, and for the exact
    same reasons.  Tain't so hard, is it?
    

    >On the other hand, making people, especially kids, feel lower than
    >whale excrement is mean spirited and destructive
    
     It is a fallacy to conclude that the use of guilt and shame to modify
    behavior automatically implies that one must be made to "feel lower than
    whale excrement." That's simply not the case. 

    >You are trying to say that children will never feel any sense of
    >shame or guilt unless their parents go out of their way to load 'em
    >up with those feelings.
    
     That's not at all what I'm saying, and I'll thank you in advance from
    refraining from putting words into my mouth. I'm quite capable of doing
    that myself, thanks. Some say I'm even good at it.
    
    >Children feel
    >very keenly feelings of shame or guilt just from a parental facial
    >expression or even from a carefully constructed criticism.
    
     Congratulations. You understand what I'm talking about despite
    yourself. Perhaps if you loosen your grasp on your preconceptions about
    how guilt and shame are used by a loving, respectful parent you'll be
    better able to recognize that you've created a greater dichotomy
    between our positions than exists in fact.
    
    >What parents need to do is to make sure that kids know that
    >it is their ACTIONS, not themselves that are being criticized or
    >corrected, and that they are still the wonderful people they always
    >have been.  
    
     None of which contradicts anything I've said (as opposed to what
    you've imputed to me.)

    Perhaps we're in violent agreement once again.

From the "American Heritage Dictionary"

Shame: 	1. A painful emotion cause from a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment,
	   unworthiness, or discrace.

	2. A person or thing that brings dishonor, discrace or condemnation.

Guilty:	1. Responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act.


I'd think twice before making my children feel either one of these.

   .343  I doubt they spelled it "discrace".  Somehow.

    Actually, we're not quite in agreement unless we agree on the following
    example of what I'm talking about, and what I suspect you're talking
    about.
    
    Your little kid is thrashing around at the dinner table having his
    usual good time, while you have company over for dinner, so he is a
    little more excited than usual.  He knocks over his glass of milk,
    which spreads all over the table and into the laps of dinner guests.
    
    Which of the following would you do?
    
    	A. Grab some napkins and say, "Here hon, help me clean this up",
    	   and say nothing more about it.
    
    	B. Tell the kid, "You're so clumsy, you should be more careful,
    	   look what you did to Auntie Kelp's dress, how many times have
    	   I told you to sit still at the table, ...  and on and on"
    
    In A, you are not adding to the embarrassment, shame, and guilt the kid
    will obviously already feel.  In fact you are giving him a way to help
    make amends.  Afterward he will remember the incident and try to be
    more careful next time, but he will not feel diminished as a person.
    
    In B, you are "using" shame and guilt to "teach" him, you might say. 
    Actually you are probably doing nothing more than trying to cover your
    own misplaced embarrassment at your kid getting milk on Auntie Kelp.
    But you have ridiculed and insulted you child in front of everyone. 
    Afterward your child will feel like he has lost just a little bit of
    his value as a person, and he will resent you just a little, quite
    rightfully so in my opinion.
    
    If you do B type things often throughout a child's life, he will
    accumulate the negative feelings about himself and about you, which
    will affect his relationship with you and his relationships with
    everyone else.

    Z    If you do B type things often throughout a child's life, he will
    Z    accumulate the negative feelings about himself and about you, which
    
    Greg, my seven year old, is at an age of reason and understands the
    ramifications of conduct.  Therefore, his behavior at the table would
    be unacceptable and would be address way before the unfortunate
    incident took place.  If he continued, then he is crossing the line of
    obedience and would be held accountable for it.
    
    -Jack

   .345

	C. Neither of the above.

    Yes but C would still sting because I would see mommy Diane's eyes
    piercing right through my heart.  Then I would start balling and go to
    my room.  Kind of like the incident on "Sound of Music".

>Then I would start balling and go to my room.

I would think that you would wanna go to your room afore you start
balling. You kids don't need to see that...

    >Therefore, his behavior at the table would be unacceptable and 
    >would be address way before the unfortunate incident took place.
    >If he continued, then he is crossing the line of obedience and 
    >would be held accountable for it.
    
    If we were talking about something a kid does on purpose and has
    good control over, then the above statement would make sense.
    
    But in light of the specific example, which is about a typical
    very normal childhood mistake that happens because their legs and
    arms are growing faster than their control over them, then the
    idea of punishing a child for such an unintentional accident is
    perverse.
    
    If he persisted in stealing stuff, then that is a whole different
    thing, but there are more effective ways of dealing with that too, and
    I certainly agree that it DOES need to be dealt with.

    IMO, I don't think either of those options are satisfactory.  If you
    just clean up the mess and don't admonish the kid for the behavior that
    caused it, that very behavior is almost guaranteed to happen again. 
    Calmly reiterate the manners you expect at the dinner table and maybe
    punish with a time out, gently explaining the purpose of the
    punishment.  The kid will respect you more for that.
    
    Always remember the Golden Rule.  

    <-- I assumed that the kid knows you don't *enjoy* having him spill
    stuff, and that he also doesn't enjoy it.  Have you ever seen a kid
    laugh at spilled milk?  C'mon now, give 'em credit for *some* sense.
    
    That's what I'm talking about.  The kid already feels bad, so what do
    people do?  Lecture them or yell at them or punish them, and usually
    ion front of lots of other people.  What is the *point* in such
    parental behavior???

    }}Have you ever seen a kid laugh at spilled milk? 
    
    Yes I have.  Not mine, mind you.
    
    I'm not talking about lecturing, yelling, or undue punishment.  
    
    Admonish:  1. To reprove gently but earnestly.  2. To warn; caution. 
               3. To remind of an obligation.  
    
    There's nothing wrong with that, is there?

    >Yes I have.  Not mine, mind you.
    
    And probably not his own milk, either  :-)
    
    I'm not talking about lecturing, yelling, or undue punishment.
    
    >Admonish:  1. To reprove gently but earnestly.  2. To warn; caution.
    >           3. To remind of an obligation.
    
    >There's nothing wrong with that, is there?
    
    Absolutely not, when that is called for.  What I'm saying is that
    kids don't spill their milk because they forgot that they shouldn't
    do that and need to be reminded of it.
    
    They spill their milk, or have other accidents, because they are
    growing and learning and not as skilled as we are, and in those
    cases "reminding", or "admonishing" is overkill and misdirected.
    It implies to the kid that you think he is stupid because he
    forgot that he isn't supposed to spill the milk, or that he is
    malicious because he did it on purpose.
    
    If neither of those things is true, then what are you admonishing
    him for?
    
    What he more likely needs is something like, "That's OK, everyone
    makes mistakes."  I always like to add, "It's OK to make an honest
    mistake, but you still need to fix it.  You are still responsible
    for what you do even though you didn't do it intentionally.
    
    When it came to driving, though, my message changed:
    
            "Don't make mistakes."
            "But what if I can't help it?"
            "Then don't drive."
            "But... {outrage}"
    
            "When you were a kid you were allowed to make mistakes,
             and you still are in most things, but not in driving.
             Make a mistake driving and you can die."
    
    My daughter has been driving for 7 years, my son for 5, and so far
    no mistakes.  Hope that continues...
    
    I gave 'em a similiar message with respect to sex.
    

    The analogy of the milk spill has nothing to do with shame or guilt, it
    has to do with the maturity of the parents to know the difference
    between willfull mishaps and accidental ones.
    
    Age, coordination, maturity of your child should determine what
    behaviors are considered wrong or willful disobedience versus that
    which is and should be expected from lack of development or knowledge.
    
    My Pastor has used this example numerous times to demonstrate to
    parents what improper discipline contains.  You would only discipline
    or shame/declare guilty of said behavior if they KNEW they were doing
    wrong.
    
    

    mama pank!

    >The analogy of the milk spill has nothing to do with shame or guilt,
    >it has to do with the maturity of the parents to know the difference
    >between willfull mishaps and accidental ones.
    
    True.  But as you can see from the replies, there are some who don't
    think that way.
    
    So how about another example:
    
            Your kid's room is the most gawdawful mess you've ever
            seen -- toys and clothes, even bedclothes scattered
            everywhere.  It's Saturday morning, right after breakfast,
            and you decide that it's time he learned to clean his room
            all by himself.  You have been doing it for him up until
            now.  So you tell him to clean his room, and then he can
            go out and play.
    
            An hour later you check, and he is playing with toys, but 
            his room looks the same as before.  If he has done anything
            to it at all, it is only perhaps to clutter it up more.
    
            So you tell him again, this time in stronger tones, and
            you include the warning that he can't go out to play until
            he cleans his room.  It is 10:00 Saturday morning, and he
            can hear all his friends outside playing.
    
            You come back in another hour, and his room is the same,
            nothing has been put away, and he is not there.  You look
            outside and there he is playing with his friends.
    
    Clearly he has blatantly disobeyed you.   How do you react?
    

Keep sex.

Ban parents and kids.

    You call him in and march him to his room and "direct" while he puts
    his toys, etc away. After he's done, he gets a timeout for disobeying.
    You can't expect a child to start putting things away for himself if
    you've been doing it all along for him just because you decide you're
    tired of doing it for him. The first few times you'll have to do it
    together. 

    The timeout would last a couple of hours in our case...simply because
    we love our kids too much to let them get away with something they are
    old enough to understand!

>          <<< Note 139.360 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "inhale to the chief" >>>

	Sounds good.  Especially coming from a lousy parent. ;>

    Again parenting questions which have nothing to do with shame/guilt.
    
    Uhm, attention adults, attention adults, children aren't born with
    knowing how do things automatically, why heck if you have to potty
    train, wouldn't it make sense that you'd have to train them in
    everything?
    
    

    >	Sounds good.  Especially coming from a lousy parent. ;>
    
     Must be a law of averages thing.

    ::goodwin
    
    Do you believe that your parents mishandled your childishness?
    
    I am curious as to why all of these situational parenting questions
    which do not directly address the subject.

    yes, go on.

    I agree with you Doc.  I asked too much of the kid, and he didn't have
    a clue how to even get started.  The only thing I might do a little
    different is figure that the mistake was basically mine, so after
    helping him clean the room, showing him how, directing him as Doc said,
    and probably helping him out as well so the task wouldn't be quite so
    daunting, I would probably let him off with "time served" and a little 
    talk about what he should have done instead of just leaving without 
    telling me.  
    
    I would be more concerned with why he was afraid to deal with me more
    directly than with his "disobeying" me.  If he trusts me then he will
    want to cooperate because he'll learn that he gets more of what he
    wants that way, assuming I show him that that is true.
                              
    Raising a kid shouldn't be a contest of wills.  If it is, then you're 
    not doing it right.   Besides, in a contest of wills with a kid, you
    only *think* you have won.

    I am curious as to why all of these situational parenting questions
    are being discussed which do not directly address the subject.
    

    >Raising a kid shouldn't be a contest of wills.  If it is, then you're 
    >not doing it right.   Besides, in a contest of wills with a kid, you
    >only *think* you have won.
    
    Spoken by someone who obviously doesn't know anything about
    "strong-willed children."
    
    
    
    
    

    >Spoken by someone who obviously doesn't know anything about
    >"strong-willed children."
    
    Oh yes I do.  That's exactly what I'm talking about.  With a
    strong-willed child, as with a strong-willed adult, the best
    and sometimes the *only* way to get them to do what you want
    is to get them to *want* to do what you want.  Besides,
    relationships are so much nicer that way.
    
    >Do you believe that your parents mishandled your childishness?
    
    I *know* that my parents mishandled a whole lot of stuff.  I know
    how I turned out and how I feel about them, and I know how my kids
    turned out and how they feel about us, and how they feel about
    themselves.
        
    >I am curious as to why all of these situational parenting questions
    >which do not directly address the subject.
    
    Both examples so far can easily be interpreted by parents as willful
    acts of disobedience or as limitations of their kids' abilities due
    to their age.  Parents could either help the kids in these examples
    or choose to punish them.  The conscious act of shaming kids and
    making them feel guilty is just one form of punishment some parents
    like to use.  I was looking to see if anyone brought that up, and
    someone actually did a little.
    
    So I guess I'm missing your point here, Nancy.  Do you have an
    example that would get more to the point of shame and guilt?
    

    Z    the best
    Z    and sometimes the *only* way to get them to do what you want
    Z    is to get them to *want* to do what you want.  Besides,
    Z    relationships are so much nicer that way.
    
    This is obviously the desired result.  Of course my sis n law's son who
    is a beligerent spoiled brat in a special school and holds a strong
    likelihood of catching AIDS, committing suicide or ending up in prison
    was handled as if he were an adult.  The parents neglected to instill
    the limits children very much need.  
    
    -Jack 

    Why is it that some people can't seem to tell the difference between
    treating kids with respect and love, and not disciplining them?
    
    The two are not related in any way.  They are, in fact, mutually
    exclusive.

    I have an EXTREMELY strong-willed child.  Imagine that.
    
    FWIW Goodwin, I think we agree, but I can't be sure yet.
    
    I was under the assumption that this kid is constantly misbehaving
    (i.e. jumping up in his chair, attempting to reach over other people's
    plates, throwing food, etc.) with the parents repeatedly trying to
    control his behavior and settle him down.  There's a difference 
    between being silly and being willfully disobedient, no?
       
    }}It implies to the kid that you think he is stupid because he
    }}forgot that he isn't supposed to spill the milk, or that he is
    }}malicious because he did it on purpose.
    
    If you do it right, it implies to the kid that he should have listened
    to you in the first place and settled down before spilling his milk all
    over the dinner guests.  Kids are always spilling stuff on accident,
    due to lack of coordination and concentration.  I understand your point
    there.  *What I'm saying* is that sometimes when a kid is acting up on
    purpose, proper discipline must take place promptly whether or not an
    accident occurred.  A simple "oopsie, here let me clean that up" tells
    the kid he can get away with it, IMO.  

    >What I'm saying* is that sometimes when a kid is acting up on
    >purpose, proper discipline must take place promptly whether or 
    >not an accident occurred.
    
    Yes, I agree with this and with the rest of what you wrote.  We were
    starting from different assumptions, that's all.
    
    But I have seen some severe and really insulting "discipline" applied
    to kids who were trying to behave themselves but just didn't quite make
    it.  That's the kind of thing I think is wrong to do.

    Yeah, I have a friend who is always screaming at her kids about
    EVERYTHING.  It's so annoying, I don't go over there anymore.  The kids
    have become so accustomed to getting reamed a new one that it doesn't
    phase them at all.  They go about their business and end up doing the
    same things over and over and getting yelled at over and over.  It is
    because of this particular friend's treatment of her kids that I am
    overly conscious of how I discipline mine.  A home should be peaceful,
    not chaotic.

   | A home should be peaceful, not chaotic.
    
    My motto exactly.

    
      "A home should be peaceful, not chaotic."  Of course, a peaceful
     home is very desirable to any rational adult.  But I doubt that a
     peaceful home seems desirable to children.  This is an area in
     which confrontation occurs because goals differ.  It is in the
     child's interest to practice dangerous, noisy, and annoying things
     in the parent's house.  They learn a lot this way.
    
      bb

    Yeah, I agree.  My daughter was/is very strong willed, but we had a
    good relationship, and she valued our approval, so she used to spend a
    lot of time and effort trying to sway us to her point of view.  Almost
    always, either she would come around to our way of thinking, or we
    would come around to hers, or we could reach some compromise.  
    
    It used to amaze me how clearly a kid actually could think once I put
    some effort into listening.  There were precious few times when we ever
    felt we had to overrule her, few enough that she could live with them.
    
    It takes a lot more effort to do that, than to just impose your
    authority with no room for argument.  But it's worth it.

    I guess I was pretty strong headed when I was a kid. 
    
    Just because my folks explained something to me in a well enough manner
    did not mean that, I was less likley to try it out for myself. There
    was no way of saying what I would do. It just depended on my level of
    interest.
    
    If a kid is really interested in a particular area, be it is sex,
    drugs, alochol or anything for that matter, he is going to try it. My
    parents always talked about the dangers of smoking, and I smoke. So I
    dont think the issue is if you do not explain it well enough your child
    will go and sleep around. I guess they will be curious and once they
    find out what they want to know the curiosity may die. But it depends
    on what lengths they have to go to find out what they need to know.
    
    If no one can tell them what they need to know, then they will probably
    do it themselves so they can draw on their own experiences. Much like
    you and I do.
    
    just my opinion.
    
    Stevo

    .379:
    
    I agree.  Kids are going to do a lot of things you don't want them to
    do.  I know I did.  My parents were REAL strict, so all I did was do
    things they didn't know about.  
    
    But my parents decided in a vacuum how they were going to raise me. 
    They developed their own ideas, got a few from church or wherever, and
    just imposed rules, with no opportunity to discuss the rules or reach
    any kind of compromise.  My reaction was to do whatever they didn't
    want me to do as soon as I could do it without their knowledge, whether
    I really wanted to do it or not.  Like smoking.
    
    Remembering all that, I took a whole different tack with my kids, and
    it seemed to work out OK.  They always seemed to have a real good sense
    of what was reasonable and what was not, and they never hesitated to
    let us know when they thought we were being unreasonable.  Funny thing
    is, most of the time I ended up agreeing with them.
    
    But on most issues, like manners, honesty, etc., -- all the basic
    morality -- they saw the logic of the "rules", especially the golden
    rule, and they tried pretty hard all on their own to comply, because
    they valued our opinion of them.
    
    I never felt my parents had a good opinion of me, and still don't, so
    there was nothing much for me to lose in that regard, and no reason I
    could see to even try.

    >that it doesn't phase them at all.  
    
     faze. /nnttm

Nothing fazed her but the captain's phaser.

    ....he caught her eyes and cauterized.
    

    Thanks, Doc.  You really DO learn something new every day!!

    Oh yeah .377, bb, you took my words completely out of context.  I agree
    that kiddos thrive on noise and chaos.  My "A home should be peaceful,
    not chaotic." comment was geared towards parents, who have the most
    say-so in the general atmosphere of the home.  Kids don't thrive on
    being yelled at.