Another great idea presented by the UN

[lilbean05]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543203,00.html

 

I have nothing to say. I am speechless. Anyone know if this falls under the Rights of Child Convention? I have already sent mail to my senator about the convention and this is more fuel for the fire.

[Rebecca VA]

Ick. These adults are disgusting, and they're projecting their vile thoughts onto children.

 

I look at the sweet homeschooled teens in our area, and I'm so glad they haven't been brought up learning this horrible stuff. They're innocent in a lovely way, and their minds are free to focus on schoolwork and friendships. Most of them don't WANT to know what the UN is trying to push onto them.

[LizzyBee]

Oh good grief, is m. really something that needs to be taught????

[HappyGrace]

God help us. :(

[PineFarmMom]

One more great idea brought to you by the U.N. Ridiculous!! They'll have to drag me to jail before I let them teach my dc their nonsense!! I think this is one of those times we are to mourn for the unrighteousness we see around us. :(

 

Teresa

[cathmom]

I saw a book at Barnes and Noble that I plan to buy called "You're Teaching My Child What?!" that is about the bad science that is being promoted as sex education these days in the name of complete sexual freedom.

[Harriet Vane]

God help us. :(

 

Indeed, God help us.

[elizabeth]

Balderdash. Fox is misrepresenting the topics covered for 5-8 year olds. If you read the report http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/082509_unesco.pdf there is a chart at the end that lists specific topics grouped at levels of appropriateness for each age range. Pointing out that persons might touch their bodies in a way that is pleasurable is not at all the same as teaching a 5-8 year old to engage in self pleasuring activity. Furthermore if you read the report it is pointed at an INTERNATIONAL audience. Being a 14 year old young woman in subsaharan Africa is an entirely different state of living than a 14 year old suburban caucasian young woman. The cultures and socioeconomic differences are so radically different that it makes little sense to use the same educational program for all young people regardless of their very real differences in culture, religion , economic life etc That is my problem with the suggested mode of education in this report. It absolutely breaks my heart to think that AIDS prevention education is needed for 10 year olds but in many parts of the world that is the age of first intercourse, sadly not by choice either. Remember about a month ago a young female child was raped by youths perhaps a year or two older than she and her family wanted nothing to do with her??That is the level of ignorance we are talking about. Not at all unusual either. That is the mentality this education programme is trying to combat.

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

They'll have to drag me to jail before I let them teach my dc their nonsense!! I think this is one of those times we are to mourn for the unrighteousness we see around us. :(

 

Teresa

 

 

Same here and I agree.

 

This is utterly vile.

[Caitilin]

Balderdash. Fox is misrepresenting the topics covered for 5-8 year olds. If you read the report http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/082509_unesco.pdf there is a chart at the end that lists specific topics grouped at levels of appropriateness for each age range. Pointing out that persons might touch their bodies in a way that is pleasurable is not at all the same as teaching a 5-8 year old to engage in self pleasuring activity. Furthermore if you read the report it is pointed at an INTERNATIONAL audience. Being a 14 year old young woman in subsaharan Africa is an entirely different state of living than a 14 year old suburban caucasian young woman. The cultures and socioeconomic differences are so radically different that it makes little sense to use the same educational program for all young people regardless of their very real differences in culture, religion , economic life etc That is my problem with the suggested mode of education in this report. It absolutely breaks my heart to think that AIDS prevention education is needed for 10 year olds but in many parts of the world that is the age of first intercourse, sadly not by choice either. Remember about a month ago a young female child was raped by youths perhaps a year or two older than she and her family wanted nothing to do with her??That is the level of ignorance we are talking about. Not at all unusual either. That is the mentality this education programme is trying to combat.

 

 

Thank-you, Elizabeth. :001_smile:

[pqr]

Balderdash. Fox is misrepresenting the topics covered for 5-8 year olds. If you read the report http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/082509_unesco.pdf there is a chart at the end that lists specific topics grouped at levels of appropriateness for each age range. Pointing out that persons might touch their bodies in a way that is pleasurable is not at all the same as teaching a 5-8 year old to engage in self pleasuring activity.

 

 

Learning Objective for Level 1 (5-8)

Distinguish between male and female bodies

Key Ideas:

• Appropriate names for body parts and their functions

• Differentiate between male and female sexual organs

• Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel

pleasurable when touched by oneself

• Appropriate public behaviour concerning private body parts

• Nakedness and shame

 

 

 

 

Learning Objectives for Level II (9-12)

Describe the structure and function of the sexual and

reproductive organs

Key Ideas:

• Basic principles of sexual and reproductive anatomy and

physiology, including the menstrual cycle, spermatogenesis

and erection, wet dreams and ejaculation

• Both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure

 

 

• Describe common genital problems

 

 

Learning Objectives for Level I (5-8)

Explain the concept of private parts of the body

Key Ideas:

• Most children are curious about their bodies

• It is natural to explore and touch parts of one’s own body

• Bodies can feel good when touched

• Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation

• Some people masturbate and some do not

 

 

• Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private

 

 

Balderdash???? It would seem that you owe Fox an apology.

 

The above is from the document. Now I sure do not want a 5 year old being taught what is listed and I do not want a 9 year old being taught about wet dreams.

 

Let’s also be serious here, when you point out that touching certain parts in a certain way may be pleasurable IS an open invitation to try it. Arguing otherwise is quite simply disingenuous.

Edited August 26, 2009 by pqr

[lionfamily1999]

Thanks for the additional link, Elizabeth.

 

So far (and I'm just starting to read through the Levels) I can see where there would be some issues that would rub religious families the wrong way. Of course, you KNEW that would happen, lol, when does anything so blanket in its approach not rub people the wrong way ;)

 

Except that I see where they could be introducing things somewhat early (imo) broaching the subject of homosexuality being one of those... it's not too far from what I figured it would be.

 

 

ETA, I really wonder at the emphasis on combating gender roles. I can see where a lot of parents could take issue with this... Also, I'm not seeing WHY an 5-8 yo needs to know about consensual sexual activity... I mean, at that age, should that even be an issue? That couldn't wait for the 9-12 at the very least???

 

ETAA:

nakedness and shame? Is there somewhere in there that sets out exactly what would be taught? Oh... and different body parts, not sure 5-8 need to identify the opposite sex's genitals.

 

ETAAA:

Lost me at Concept 5. Sorry. Waaaaaaaaaay to far. Not just a little, more like the line was left in the dust hours ago.

Edited August 26, 2009 by lionfamily1999

[PineFarmMom]

That is the level of ignorance we are talking about. Not at all unusual either. That is the mentality this education programme is trying to combat.

 

That may be true, BUT it's called the UNITED NATIONS for a reason. I don't feel we are remiss in thinking that even if this form of education came about to protect the children in these other countries that it could potentially affect us here in ways we have every right to want to stand against!! Things need to be done directly to assist in these countries in ways that won't potentially affect people in other places. There is no reason to teach some of the things they are planning to 5-8 year olds. I'm not a big fan of the UN, and things like this make it less and less likely every day.

 

Teresa

[Impish]

Under section 1.2, I'd like to know WHOSE 'feelings, values and attitudes' they're trying to 'explain' and 'clarify'. HOLY CRAP...Same section "teachers in the classroom have a responsibility to act as parents...'

 

It goes on to say that "teachers remain the best qualified and most trusted providers of information and support" on page 14.

 

Thanks, but no thanks!

[athena1277]

I don't see how anyone can read that and still wonder why we homeschool!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Balderdash. Fox is misrepresenting the topics covered for 5-8 year olds. If you read the report http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/082509_unesco.pdf there is a chart at the end that lists specific topics grouped at levels of appropriateness for each age range. Pointing out that persons might touch their bodies in a way that is pleasurable is not at all the same as teaching a 5-8 year old to engage in self pleasuring activity. Furthermore if you read the report it is pointed at an INTERNATIONAL audience. Being a 14 year old young woman in subsaharan Africa is an entirely different state of living than a 14 year old suburban caucasian young woman. The cultures and socioeconomic differences are so radically different that it makes little sense to use the same educational program for all young people regardless of their very real differences in culture, religion , economic life etc That is my problem with the suggested mode of education in this report. It absolutely breaks my heart to think that AIDS prevention education is needed for 10 year olds but in many parts of the world that is the age of first intercourse, sadly not by choice either. Remember about a month ago a young female child was raped by youths perhaps a year or two older than she and her family wanted nothing to do with her??That is the level of ignorance we are talking about. Not at all unusual either. That is the mentality this education programme is trying to combat.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Impish]

How exactly, are they going to teach 5-8 yos how HIV and STI are transmitted, without going beyond what most would deem appropriate or acceptable?

 

Diva is 10. So she would be taught such nifty** topics such as: 'showing love involves more than penetrative se*", "definition and function of orgasm", "concepts, examples, positive and negative effects of 'aphrodisiacs'" That's just under ONE heading.

 

No way in hell. Wolf just about fell over when I showed him this.

[Elizabeth Conley]

The "intellectuals" in the UN are absolute fruit cakes. I say "Let them yap." The more people hear from the UN, the more the UN discredits itself. That's a good thing. The UN at its best is useless. At its worst it is dangerous.

[hornblower]

Nothing bothersome in any of this.

 

Except the hysteria, that is.

[Impish]

I find it appalling that kids in public school will have this on their agenda. I don't know about the US, but Canada signed on for the Rights Of The Child stuff by the UN

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think the UN deserves the fruitcake title any more than many of the people who fight any and all sex education for any and all people.

[K&Rs Mom]

I don't think the UN deserves the fruitcake title any more than many of the people who fight any and all sex education for any and all people.

 

You're right, but the UN is more dangerous to us because they have a veil of respectability in many people's eyes; the other group is pretty easy to ignore. Fruitcakes of ALL sorts need to leave my kids alone! :glare:

[Mommy22alyns]

How exactly, are they going to teach 5-8 yos how HIV and STI are transmitted, without going beyond what most would deem appropriate or acceptable?

.

 

 

 

:iagree: That's just what I was wondering. :confused:

[sheryl]

Indeed, God help us.

 

Ditto and Ditto!!

[Elizabeth Conley]

After the brilliant teachers in the public schools figure out how to teach the 3 Rs effectively, there are about 4 more subjects they should crack the code on before they start monkeying around with sex education.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Elizabeth Conley
removal of gratuitous insult to public education - Mea Culpa - it just slipped out - honest!

[angela in ohio]

Balderdash. Fox is misrepresenting the topics covered for 5-8 year olds. If you read the report http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/082509_unesco.pdf there is a chart at the end that lists specific topics grouped at levels of appropriateness for each age range. Pointing out that persons might touch their bodies in a way that is pleasurable is not at all the same as teaching a 5-8 year old to engage in self pleasuring activity.

 

From the chart:

 

"Key Ideas:

• Most children are curious about their bodies

• It is natural to explore and touch parts of one’s own body

• Bodies can feel good when touched

• Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation

• Some people masturbate and some do not

• Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private"

 

Yes, this goes to the point of "teaching a 5-8 year old to engage in self pleasuring activity," as it tells them when and how to do it.

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=494&parentID=472 Here is a link to the group referenced in the report commisioned by the UN that shows the USA group's position on these issues. The UN is often invoked to stir the fear of "one world order" and other socially marginal ideas. This is a link to the persons who do in fact design and implement the sexual education programs taught in the US public schools. That is ,in fact ,germane to US education policy. In other words, folks, the UN document that causes so many to be "uncomfortable " is based in large part on the US group including policy positions , curricula, research methodologies and such. Odd that the BASIS for the UN 's allegedly libertine , offensive , promiscuity promoting document is in fact direct from the good old USA . One of our many education thinktanks...of course that fact will not yield quite the fury that the United Nations seems to but I thought it worth pointing out where this document develops from...FWIW this is exactly one of the reasons we home educate. I am not comfortable with the abstinence only education offered in the ps system.

[Dirtroad]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543203,00.html

 

I have nothing to say. I am speechless. Anyone know if this falls under the Rights of Child Convention? I have already sent mail to my senator about the convention and this is more fuel for the fire.

 

I saw this. Repulsive. We could save the world from a lot of problems & wasted spending by shutting this bunch of clowns down. Much of this may have roots in the USA... but the UN carries it all over the world.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Carrie12345]

Honestly, these are all things that are taught in my home, right around the same general ages. But they are taught in MY home, by ME.

 

My children happen to NOT live in Africa, and have no need to be taught about their private parts and private functions by a paid third party in front of dozens of other children, and I'm definitely glad I don't have to worry about that happening!

[Elizabeth Conley]

• Most children are curious about their bodies

• It is natural to explore and touch parts of one’s own body

• Bodies can feel good when touched

• Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation

• Some people masturbate and some do not

• Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private"

 

 

If someone other than my husband or I discussed these topics with my child, I would seriously consider the probability that s/he was a child molester. I would question whether the person should have contact with children, and I would curtail the person's access to my child.

[lionfamily1999]

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=494&parentID=472 Here is a link to the group referenced in the report commisioned by the UN that shows the USA group's position on these issues. The UN is often invoked to stir the fear of "one world order" and other socially marginal ideas. This is a link to the persons who do in fact design and implement the sexual education programs taught in the US public schools. That is ,in fact ,germane to US education policy. In other words, folks, the UN document that causes so many to be "uncomfortable " is based in large part on the US group including policy positions , curricula, research methodologies and such. Odd that the BASIS for the UN 's allegedly libertine , offensive , promiscuity promoting document is in fact direct from the good old USA . One of our many education thinktanks...of course that fact will not yield quite the fury that the United Nations seems to but I thought it worth pointing out where this document develops from...FWIW this is exactly one of the reasons we home educate. I am not comfortable with the abstinence only education offered in the ps system.

That is even more bothersome. Real nice to think WE are the ones putting this stuff out there.

 

I was not trying to lambast you, Elizabeth, for posting the link. I know the major networks twist things and I appreciated being able to read it first hand. I came to the same conclusions, but it's always nicer to reach them based on my own thought process ;)

 

Thanks, again, for the info.

[Impish]

If someone other than my husband or I discussed these topics with my child, I would seriously consider the probability that s/he was a child molester. I would question whether the person should have contact with children, and I would curtail the person's access to my child.

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

It all blows my mind. The teachers being the most trusted source of info and support lines running through it makes my skin crawl too.

[keptwoman]

From the chart:

 

"Key Ideas:

• Most children are curious about their bodies

• It is natural to explore and touch parts of one’s own body

• Bodies can feel good when touched

• Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation

• Some people masturbate and some do not

• Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private"

 

Yes, this goes to the point of "teaching a 5-8 year old to engage in self pleasuring activity," as it tells them when and how to do it.

While I agree in principle that this should be taught in a home, there are many many parents who do not do any sex ed with their children at all. Now personally, my comfort level is that this is NOT the schools responsibility or perhaps even right to teach. But they cater for the lowest common denominator, and in sex ed that's the girls who get their periods one day and think they are dying.

 

This is an area of personal conflict for me, I don't want them to teach MY kids that, and I'm thankful that my kids aren't at school and I don't have to worry about it.

 

But I understand the need to cover it for those children who don't get the information at home.

 

Of course that then brings up another big debate about how much "parenting" schools do and whether it's a self fulfilling prophecy: The more they "parent" the kids, the more the parents think they can step back and let the school handle that. We see it in sex ed, road safety, healthy eating, exercise, dog safety, telling the kids what should go into their lunchboxes etc etc etc. And the list keeps growing.

[Impish]

I mentioned this in #14

"teachers in the classroom have a responsibility to act as parents...'

"teachers remain the best qualified and most trusted providers of information and support"

 

Direct quotes from the UN document.

[kewb]

Nothing bothersome in any of this.

 

Except the hysteria, that is.

 

:iagree:

[PineFarmMom]

Nothing bothersome in any of this.

 

Except the hysteria, that is.

 

No, hysteria isn't the problem. The big issue here will be that the govt., you, and anyone who doesn't seem to find it bothersome will have to respect those of us who do find it bothersome so that our parental rights will not be plowed down!! Again, I'll be tossed in jail before someone teaches all of that to my children because it is absolutely inappropriate for the ages and nobody's business but mine and dh's to teach it. And I wouldn't teach all of that anyway because all of those topics are not necessary!! I, also, feel that someone who desires to sit and have that conversation with my child (ANY child) could potentially be predators rather than having my children's best interest in mind. It's ridiculous!!

 

Teresa

[PineFarmMom]

I mentioned this in #14

"teachers in the classroom have a responsibility to act as parents...'

"teachers remain the best qualified and most trusted providers of information and support"

 

Direct quotes from the UN document.

 

That's funny!!

 

Teresa

[lilbean05]

While I understand the possible need to teach this to other cultures/nations/etc that need to deal with these sorts of topics at a much earlier age, I am back to my original question. Does anyone know if this is apart of the UN Rights of a Child Convention that the US has taken a new interest in joining? I know that with the new administration there has been a bigger push to ratify the US signing process which began years ago. I already disagree with much of the convention, and if this is apart of it, it makes me THAT much more upset about the possibility that my rights as a parent will be stripped from me.

 

While I don't disagree with the importance of some of these topics, if anyone is going to be teaching them to my kids, it will be me and my husband. I understand the need for some countries to have a bit more regulation, but not our country. Again, more of why I disagree with the US joining the UN ROC convention.

[Unicorn.]

Haven't looked at the fox report, but are ya'll sure that level 1 is not 5th -8th grade, and level II 9th -12th grade? Texas schools already teach such a program. It's called "Worth the Wait". And it starts in 5th grade. Dh is a science teacher, guess what he hates to teach every spring!

[Mom-ninja.]

While I agree in principle that this should be taught in a home, there are many many parents who do not do any sex ed with their children at all. Now personally, my comfort level is that this is NOT the schools responsibility or perhaps even right to teach. But they cater for the lowest common denominator, and in sex ed that's the girls who get their periods one day and think they are dying.

 

This is an area of personal conflict for me, I don't want them to teach MY kids that, and I'm thankful that my kids aren't at school and I don't have to worry about it.

 

But I understand the need to cover it for those children who don't get the information at home.

 

Of course that then brings up another big debate about how much "parenting" schools do and whether it's a self fulfilling prophecy: The more they "parent" the kids, the more the parents think they can step back and let the school handle that. We see it in sex ed, road safety, healthy eating, exercise, dog safety, telling the kids what should go into their lunchboxes etc etc etc. And the list keeps growing.

 

:iagree: You summed it up nicely for me.

[Rosie_0801]

...Same section "teachers in the classroom have a responsibility to act as parents...'

 

It goes on to say that "teachers remain the best qualified and most trusted providers of information and support" on page 14.

 

Thanks, but no thanks!

 

I'd think most teachers would be saying "Thanks, but no thanks!" on this topic as well!

 

Rosie

[Nestof3]

Why is strongly disagreeing with something called hysteria?

[Nestof3]

1. ages 5 to 8 (Level 1)

2. ages 9 to 12 (Level 2)

3. ages 12 to 15 (Level 3)

 

 

4. ages 15 to 18+ (Level 4).

 

Thank you for providing quotes and info instead of just reacting, calling balderdash or accusing of hysteria.

 

Learning Objective for Level 1 (5-8)

 

Distinguish between male and female bodies

Key Ideas:

• Appropriate names for body parts and their functions

• Differentiate between male and female sexual organs

• Girls and boys have private body parts that can feel

pleasurable when touched by oneself

• Appropriate public behaviour concerning private body parts

• Nakedness and shame

 

 

 

 

 

Learning Objectives for Level II (9-12)

Describe the structure and function of the sexual and

reproductive organs

Key Ideas:

• Basic principles of sexual and reproductive anatomy and

physiology, including the menstrual cycle, spermatogenesis

and erection, wet dreams and ejaculation

• Both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure

 

 

• Describe common genital problems

 

 

Learning Objectives for Level I (5-8)

Explain the concept of private parts of the body

Key Ideas:

• Most children are curious about their bodies

• It is natural to explore and touch parts of one’s own body

• Bodies can feel good when touched

• Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation

• Some people masturbate and some do not

 

 

• Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private

 

 

Balderdash???? It would seem that you owe Fox an apology.

 

The above is from the document. Now I sure do not want a 5 year old being taught what is listed and I do not want a 9 year old being taught about wet dreams.

 

Let’s also be serious here, when you point out that touching certain parts in a certain way may be pleasurable IS an open invitation to try it. Arguing otherwise is quite simply disingenuous.

[hornblower]

Why is strongly disagreeing with something called hysteria?

 

In the sense that hysteria can be defined as excessive fear or anxiety of something. I was saying that some people appear to me to be a) excessively anxious & fearful about children's nascent sexuality; b) excessively anxious & fearful about children masturbating; c) excessively anxious & fearful of the UN.

 

I am quite aware that I'm in the minority in this forum on these issues but I nevertheless find it important to note that I don't object to any of the 3 things I've listed.

 

The response of the majority on this board gives me pause & reconfirms my determination to speak out on the causes of internationalism, tolerance and human rights.

[Mrs Mungo]

In the sense that hysteria can be defined as excessive fear or anxiety of something. I was saying that some people appear to me to be a) excessively anxious & fearful about children's nascent sexuality; b) excessively anxious & fearful about children masturbating; c) excessively anxious & fearful of the UN.

 

I am quite aware that I'm in the minority in this forum on these issues but I nevertheless find it important to note that I don't object to any of the 3 things I've listed.

 

The response of the majority on this board gives me pause & reconfirms my determination to speak out on the causes of internationalism, tolerance and human rights.

 

I agree. Furthermore, it's hysterical because the UN has no power over what we do in the US. Even if the US signed this (unlikely, take a look at our record under both Republican and Democrat administrations) it doesn't mean we'd enforce it. It's a *voluntary* program, even among the countries that signed it. It's fear-mongering and hysteria to pretend this would somehow be *required* in the US school system.

[Nestof3]

Mrs. Mungo, I disagree with things that happen in other countries all the time. I can even be outraged by a crime I read about in the news that doesn't even affect me.

 

I agree. Furthermore, it's hysterical because the UN has no power over what we do in the US. Even if the US signed this (unlikely, take a look at our record under both Republican and Democrat administrations) it doesn't mean we'd enforce it. It's a *voluntary* program, even among the countries that signed it. It's fear-mongering and hysteria to pretend this would somehow be *required* in the US school system.

[sweetbasil]

I agree. Furthermore, it's hysterical because the UN has no power over what we do in the US. Even if the US signed this (unlikely, take a look at our record under both Republican and Democrat administrations) it doesn't mean we'd enforce it. It's a *voluntary* program, even among the countries that signed it. It's fear-mongering and hysteria to pretend this would somehow be *required* in the US school system.

 

This treaty would override all existing State and Federal law. If it's just "voluntary" then what's the point of adopting it? That's illogical.

 

For you to claim it's just "hysteria" to suggest this would ever be required in the US is incredibly naive. We need only look around our country right now to see the encroachment of the state into the lives of our children.

 

In the David Parker case --involving his son in Kindergarten-- the ACLU argued that "Parents' rights end at the schoolhouse door."

 

If being concerned about very real threats to our liberty is "hysterical fear mongering," then call me hysterical.

[keptwoman]

In the sense that hysteria can be defined as excessive fear or anxiety of something. I was saying that some people appear to me to be a) excessively anxious & fearful about children's nascent sexuality; b) excessively anxious & fearful about children masturbating; c) excessively anxious & fearful of the UN.

 

I am quite aware that I'm in the minority in this forum on these issues but I nevertheless find it important to note that I don't object to any of the 3 things I've listed.

 

The response of the majority on this board gives me pause & reconfirms my determination to speak out on the causes of internationalism, tolerance and human rights.

I agree. I find the fear of the UN quite fascinating actually.

I think in an ideal world these things wouldn't need to be taught in school, because a)parents would teach them and/or b)they wouldn't be needed (in relation to young children needing to know about STIs). But it's not an ideal world, so schools often need to cover it.

[Mrs Mungo]

Dawn,

 

My question to you is whether you are more outraged that 9 and 10 year old children (and not just girls, believe me) in other countries actually need this sort of information or that they receive this information? Sadly, I believe it is completely necessary in some countries. Is it an outrage that they need it? Yes. Is it an outrage to provide it? Not in my opinion.

 

This treaty would override all existing State and Federal law. If it's just "voluntary" then what's the point of adopting it? That's illogical.

 

First of all, even the Fox News article called it VOLUNTARY, for crying out loud. The UN has passed *many* initiatives that are voluntary and not enforced. These include initiatives on mining, sustainable tourism, all sorts of things. NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, environmental groups, etc push for these voluntary initiatives because they are much easier to get countries to sign. They are considered "soft-law." They are not enforced. They are more like a set of ideals that the UN is putting forth. They aren't ratified.

 

In order for ANY treaty that the US signs to become US Law it must be ratified by the Senate. These sorts of initiatives are almost never ratified by the Senate. Even UN treaties that *are* ratified are often given restrictions within US law.

 

For example, under George Bush the Senate ratified the Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflict. Despite the fact it's been ratified the US *does not* fully comply with the protocol because we allow the US military to recruit in schools.

 

The US Senate ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Even though it should be "supreme law of the land", as you say, reservations were added to prevent the full implementation within the US.

 

There are plenty of other similar examples and those are not just voluntary initiatives.

 

 

For you to claim it's just "hysteria" to suggest this would ever be required in the US is incredibly naive. We need only look around our country right now to see the encroachment of the state into the lives of our children.

 

In the David Parker case --involving his son in Kindergarten-- the ACLU argued that "Parents' rights end at the schoolhouse door."

What has this to do with the UN?

 

If being concerned about very real threats to our liberty is "hysterical fear mongering," then call me hysterical.

It just smacks to me of the boy who cried wolf. Am I concerned for very real threats to my liberty? Absolutely. Do I believe a voluntary initiative designed to help children in developing nations neither signed nor ratified by the US is a threat to my liberty? No. Edited August 27, 2009 by Mrs Mungo
fixing typo

[Nestof3]

Dawn,

 

My question to you is whether you are more outraged that 9 and 10 year old children (and not just girls, believe me) in other countries actually need this sort of information or that they receive this information? Sadly, I believe it is completely necessary in some countries. Is it an outrage that they need it? Yes. Is it an outrage to provide it? Not in my opinion.

 

 

 

Actually, Mrs. Mungo, the program starts at 5 year olds, so I'm not sure why you chose 9 and 10 for your example. To answer your question, I am outraged by practices and conditions in other countries, but I do not think 5 year olds (or 9 year olds) need to be encouraged to think of their private area as pleasurable when touched.

 

In truth, sex ed programs have been set up in the U.S. for some time now; I remember having one in the fifth grade. I'm not sure what they continue to teach in U.S. sex ed class, as I have no intentions of ever having my children in a traditional school again. It doesn't personally affect me. There are initiatives and treaties with the UN that do seriously concern me despite what good they do in the world, and these do pertain to family, which is probably why this sex ed initiative is bothersome to many.

 

U.S. public schools are, in my opinion, a social program for those who do not teach their own or do not have the means to provide a means of education for their children. It was voluntary in the beginning and not invasive. Now, though, I answer to my local school board for my homeschooling. So, I do think something can start out just being helpful and there for "those who aren't getting it otherwise" and become the norm and invasive.