×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wisconsin DA Threatens Arrests Over Sex Ed

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the talk-about-genitals-go-directly-to-jail dept.

Crime 703

WrongSizeGlass writes "USA Today is reporting that the DA of Juneau County, Wisconsin, is warning teachers that they could face arrest over the new sex-ed curriculum. District Attorney Scott Southworth said a new state law that requires students learn to use condoms and other contraceptives 'promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.' Southworth also said, 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers. I've got enough work to do.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

703 comments

Translation for the legislative impared. (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | about 4 years ago | (#31769300)

DA: Hey Legislative Branch, your new law on sex-ed requires teachers to break your old law on sexual misconduct. Please fix. I'd rather not have to charge all the teachers in the state.
Legislator: Duh, say what? I don't write no contradictory laws.
DA: See you in court!

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 4 years ago | (#31769358)

Legislator: Duh, say what? I don't write no contradictory laws.
DA: See you in court!


If only...

Unfortunately, as happens far too often, the legislators themselves don't go to jail for BS like this. Instead, we have random Joes just trying to do their jobs who now have to choose which of two laws to break.

(+5 insightful, but I wanted to comment as well).

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (5, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 4 years ago | (#31769484)

Some legislators parents should have used condoms.

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (5, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 4 years ago | (#31769776)

Some legislators parents should have used condoms.

It's not too late.

Did you know that it's possible to get a condom over someone's head and that this will deprive them of air?

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (5, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | about 4 years ago | (#31769818)

Yeah except this has nothing to do with legislative conflicts and more to do with a young, egotistical, fundamentalist christian DA from a specific country trying to scare people and get in the news and impose his beliefs on people. He needs to STFU and GBTW.

From TFA:

The paper spoke to a co-author of the legislation. She called the DA's letter "irresponsible" and said it was "laughable to think teachers could be charged for telling students how to use contraception." "Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone," said Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison. "This guy is not a credible legal source on this matter, I'm sorry to say. His purpose is to intimidate and create enough panic in the minds of school administrators that they'll turn their backs on young people and their families."

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about 4 years ago | (#31769384)

I don't think this is just a case of someone pointing out a contradictory law.

"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."

I think he very much believes that it just shouldn't be taught.

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 4 years ago | (#31769678)

"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote.

Holy fucking shit. That's even crazier than the "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children" line from the summary. I thought my ears had gone mad at that line. I mean what's the logic -- acknowledging the potential sexuality of our kids means promoting it, which somehow means there will be more pedophiles? But no it's even crazier than that.

I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!

Of all the bat-shit crazy things I've heard come out of the "think of the children" crowd, this has got to be the looniest. God, my head hurts.

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (1)

stinerman (812158) | about 4 years ago | (#31769786)

Agreed 100%.

To put this in a car analogy, we shouldn't have driver's education classes in school (or apparently at all according to our friendly DA), because doing so would teach people to become carjackers. I mean, you start teaching them to lock their car doors and they'll go off stealing people's cars if their doors aren't locked.

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 4 years ago | (#31769808)

I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!

If the student is below the age of consent, then they are considered a victim by the law whether or not they are a victim as considered by society or common definition.

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (2, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | about 4 years ago | (#31769842)

It is patently absurd for two sixteen-year-olds to rape each other.

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 4 years ago | (#31769846)

Only if their partner is over the age of consent.

I guess their could be a jurisdiction where that isn't the case, but most laws at least manage to be that sane.

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769700)

I'm curious as to how one can be encouraged to be a "victim" of sexual behavior.

But hey, he's just the guy who chooses who to prosecute for sex crimes.

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (3, Insightful)

canajin56 (660655) | about 4 years ago | (#31769674)

No, it's not like that at all. He's saying any form of sex education is illegal, which isn't supported by the law whatsoever. There is no contradiction except in his twisted head, where he thinks everybody who knows what sex is will automatically rape. He has an adopted child, maybe Child Services should pay them a visit, if he really thinks that.

Re:Translation for the legislative impared. (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about 4 years ago | (#31769832)

If two laws contradict each other, then the newer one takes precedent. This is not a revolutionary concept. Why are you pretending not to understand?

Sex (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31769312)

The hypocrisy in US in unbelievable. Violence and killing people is all okay in TV, but when it's teaching persons about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden.
Even while I live in Europe and sexuality is quite okayish here, my parents never taught anything about it. I learned it from school and from friends. And let me say this, what they taught in school was probably a lot more responsible than what my friends told me.

Sometimes I get the feeling that all of the hate about sexuality is from older people who don't know how to get, don't have the mindset to get it or are angry at other people who have fun doing it. After all, when you're adult it's one of the most fun things to do.

Re:Sex (5, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | about 4 years ago | (#31769352)

In the US, religionists hate sex that isn't rationed according to their superstition. Americans, by and large, are religious, willfully ignorant, and ruled by fear. Any pleasure not rationed by preacher or priest is evil.

Re:Sex (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769458)

I am a christian.
My thoughts on sex ed are not informed by the Bible or a preacher. Whenever I consider an issue like the legalisation of dope, legalisation of prostiturion, sex ed, corporal punishment etc I look at case studies, staticstics and so forth. UNICEF release some good figures as does the EU around these types of issues. Over here in NZ we have some organisations that also release finding from studies, so there is a vast amount of information that one can use to make a decision.
So just because one is a Christine does not mean that one blindly follows a book or preacher or whatever - we are allowed to disagree on the ground of emperical evidence and other finding without being labelled as religous nutjobs.

Re:Sex (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769614)

Since there is no empirical evidence for any of the supernatural claims made in the Bible, then yes, you are blindly following your preacher and books. Sorry. Doesn't the good and bad of life make more sense when you reject the idea of gods? It sure does to me.

Re:Sex (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#31769620)

I am a christian. My thoughts on sex ed are not informed by the Bible or a preacher. .... Over here in NZ .

You are also not American and that is the differance. American society weird on a lot of things from the point of view of outsiders. Yet if you try and tell them that its all "I can't hear you" or "you are one of them commo anti-americans that hates our guts"

Re:Sex (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about 4 years ago | (#31769636)

They tend to in the good old US of A. If you don't believe me, take a trip to the Bible belt. I'm surprised they don't have drive through churches.

Re:Sex (1)

Lucidus (681639) | about 4 years ago | (#31769692)

So are you saying that you are against sex education, based on the empirical evidence? Because every bit of the (plentiful) empirical evidence I have seen points in the other direction.

Re:Sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769830)

So just because one is a Christine does not mean that one blindly follows a book or preacher or whatever - we are allowed to disagree on the ground of emperical evidence and other finding without being labelled as religous nutjobs.

It is very hard to take that statement seriously. (assuming you meant Christian. I know plenty of smart, level-headed Christines)
Scientific method (hypothesis, prediction, evidence, tests, peer-review....etc) is at odds with typical religious views.

Although, it depends on which particular sect of Christianity you subscribe to:
The "Buddhist" approach: Jesus was a good guy with good ideas, we should try to be like him.
Or
The "Savior" approach: Son of god, virgin birth, water into wine, walking on water, the resurrection.

Only one of the above is supported by scientific method.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with people believing whatever the hell they want to. The problem I have is when those views hold the rest of us back.
Like Creationism in science class, the battle against stem cell research, the pope telling Stephen Hawking not to investigate the big bang [foxnews.com] , the prosecution of Galileo (etc, etc, etc.......).

Re:Sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769812)

I think pleasure being rationed by a priest is pretty common - im sure i saw a story about that somewhere...

Re:Sex (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | about 4 years ago | (#31769354)

Most of the problem is that sexual reproduction and evolution makes several contradictions with some really popular book that people think too much about.

Re:Sex (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769448)

Most of the problem is that sexual reproduction and evolution makes several contradictions with some really popular book that people think too much about.

I don't think Harry Potter is that well revered.

Re:Sex (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#31769698)

Actually it doesn't, it's just that some have twisted it and don't acknowledge the FACT that is was cobbled together years after the event. Hell, most people think the new testament was written by people who where there.

There is a guy in the office that not only thinks the bible is a literal document, but that is was personally handed down from God to Adam.

This person is not stupid.

Re:Sex (5, Insightful)

blankinthefill (665181) | about 4 years ago | (#31769414)

Besides being more responsible, it also has an effect on many negative numbers like teen pregnancy. For years, teen pregnancy dropped. With the advent of abstinence only sex ed being the only sex ed that the government would fund, teen pregnancy started to rise. Educating teens about the the risks of unprotected sex is a good idea. Telling teens just not to do it... not such a good idea. Personally, my kids will know almost anything they want to about sex as soon as they ask me, because I feel that being prepared, and knowing the risks involved is thousands of times better than just feeling it out yourself (which is what kids will do, no matter what we tell them). Teens CAN make good choices about things... IF they are educated about them. Remove the education, and those good choices go out the window also.

Re:Sex (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 years ago | (#31769680)

The hypocrisy in US in unbelievable. Violence and killing people is all okay in TV, but when it's teaching persons about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden.

To be fair, I think most parents are correct in thinking that their high-schooler is more likely to have sex than flip out and kill people.

I believe they're quite incorrect in assuming that if kids don't know how to have sex safely though, they won't have sex. I think most of the gap in their logic there is filled in with discomfort over thinking of their children as young adults with urges, and nonsense about sex being immoral.

Re:Sex (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#31769732)

The hypocrisy in US in unbelievable. Violence and killing people is all okay in TV, but when it's teaching persons about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden.

      You have to remember who originally founded the US in the first place - puritanical religious nutbags. Now you know why they were being persecuted in Europe...

      But seriously, the US has always had this double standard. Most Americans would be outraged to see a bare-breasted girl on page 3 of the newspaper right before "borrowing" said newspaper for an extended trip to the bathroom. This is the country where your TV station will face huge fines and a public outcry for showing a nipple during a super-bowl, and yet is also the home of a thriving print, video and on-line porn industry.

Re:Sex (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769748)

The hypocrisy in US in unbelievable. Violence and killing people is all okay in TV...

Despite what the media sensationalizes, we have a much bigger problem with teen pregnancy than teen gun violence.

They're going to do it anyway. (5, Insightful)

samriel (1456543) | about 4 years ago | (#31769334)

Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible? Or would you rather that they have the knowledge of how to use contraceptives to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STDs? We teach kids how to do everything else safely, but we think, "Well, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway, so if we don't tell them about it, they won't do it." Hogwash.

Re:They're going to do it anyway. (5, Insightful)

abulafia (7826) | about 4 years ago | (#31769802)

Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible?

Well, that is the problem, isn't it?

And you don't have to look far to see that at least some anti-sex-ed types want people to suffer for having sex. Not all of them, but some do. Multiple prominent people fight HPV vaccination because they see it as enabling premarital sex without the "consequences" they find appropriate. Even though any rational person has to know that some percentage (in the case of HPV, a disturbingly large one) of kids are going to have sex and contract it anyway. To the people making this argument, that is an appropriate "consequence" of fucking before marriage. You hear similar things from some anti-abortion types who also tend to talk about "consequences". The people who think this way especially give themselves away when they oppose birth control, as in this case, which reduces the incidence of abortion. They are more concerned with controlling people's sexuality than they are about reducing incidence of disease or abortion.

A lot of times, they'll cluck about that not being the intent, but you simply have to look at their actions - are they supporting the reduction of preventable disease and death? There are some, probably, who are sufficiently clueless as to not understand the consequences of what they support, but if they're that clueless, they shouldn't be listened to, anyway. And what can be said about people who prefer disease and death to sexual freedom?

News for Nerds??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769342)

Excuse me, but what does this story have to do with my rights online at all? Or how is this a story worth of "news for nerds"?

There is no tech relevance. It's really a local educational issue that stuff like this happens in every district.

Slashdot editors really need to start picking up the slack. It's getting pretty thin pickings here nowadays.

Re:News for Nerds??!! (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31769366)

Excuse me, but what does this story have to do with my rights online at all? Or how is this a story worth of "news for nerds"?

There is no tech relevance. It's really a local educational issue that stuff like this happens in every district.

Slashdot editors really need to start picking up the slack. It's getting pretty thin pickings here nowadays.

It may surprise you, but most of us geeks also have sex. And considering the next generation of geeks, its probably better they are taught the safety things at schools.

Re:News for Nerds??!! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769392)

It may surprise you, but most of us geeks also have sex

A fleshlight or your right hand don't count. Having to get your cousin give you a handjob doesn't either.

Re:News for Nerds??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769668)

Spoken like a true right-handed, cousin-fleshlighting handjober.

Re:News for Nerds??!! (1)

ElKry (1544795) | about 4 years ago | (#31769380)

I've always seen the comma there: "Your rights, online". Makes a big difference. But yeah, this is more idle-worth than anything else.

Re:News for Nerds??!! (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | about 4 years ago | (#31769422)

I've always seen the comma there: "Your rights, online". Makes a big difference. But yeah, this is more idle-worth than anything else.

No, I actually think its a good thing. It seems like US really needs this, and I would had been proud of my parents if they would had fight for a more open and sexually aware world for me. The truth is, everyone is going to have sex and 99% of people are going to do it during teenage. There will be problems if they don't know how to do it safely. It's fucking hilarious/sad that a teacher that teaches safety practices is threaten by an arrest to do so.

Re:News for Nerds??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769432)

Let's eat, grandma!
Let's eat grandma!

Re:News for Nerds??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769840)

kinky

Am I missing something? (0, Redundant)

aztektum (170569) | about 4 years ago | (#31769376)

Unless this class is taught online, what does it have to do with YRO?

Hey /., stop trying to be reddit or digg. plz. k. thx.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | about 4 years ago | (#31769436)

Much like other popular acronyms like KFC, CNBC, and SyFy... they've grown to mean more than the original words ever meant.

Condoms promote sexual activity? (1)

nephilimsd (936642) | about 4 years ago | (#31769386)

Just like using an antivirus program promotes making viruses.

Re:Condoms promote sexual activity? (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 4 years ago | (#31769706)

Exactly. After all, if there were no antivirus programs, virus writers wouldn't need to keep writing new viruses to get around them!

Dear Juneau, Wisconsin... (5, Funny)

russotto (537200) | about 4 years ago | (#31769396)

Just because you share your name with an Alaska city doesn't mean you have to be as dumb as Sarah Palin.

Re:Dear Juneau, Wisconsin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769684)

Just because you share your name with an Alaska city doesn't mean you have to be as dumb as Sarah Palin.

Sarah clearly attended sex ed [imgur.com] .

Priorities (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 4 years ago | (#31769410)

Southworth also said 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do.'"

Apparently not. Like the recent nullification suits brought to defeat health care reform, not even the originators believe there is any merit to these actions. This is all about grandstanding to promote a particular ideology at tax payer expense. It's just a shame this guy is terrorizing teachers in the process.

Re:Priorities (0, Redundant)

khallow (566160) | about 4 years ago | (#31769820)

Like the recent nullification suits brought to defeat health care reform, not even the originators believe there is any merit to these actions.

{{citation needed}}

Same guy? (3, Interesting)

MaggieL (10193) | about 4 years ago | (#31769426)

Gee, is this the same Scott Harold Southworth who was named a "CNN Hero" when he adopted a crippled Iraqi boy when he was deployed with the WI National Guard? Even though he's not married?

from: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/15/sm.02.html [cnn.com]

Of course there are people around us every day who are doing extraordinary things to make our world better. And all this year we are honoring them. We are bringing you stories of people that we call "CNN Heroes". And we're also inviting you to tell us about the heroes that you happen to know.

So, today we introduce you to a man from Wisconsin who went from fighting insurgents in Iraq to becoming a single father. Scott Southworth is today's CNN Hero.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ready?

SCOTT SOUTHWORTH, CNN HERO: No soldier goes to war with the expectation of coming home and adopting an orphan from the war zone.

My name is Major Scott Harold Southworth. I'm a member of the Wisconsin Army National Guard and the proud father of an Iraqi orphan by the name of Ala'a Adem (ph).

Come on, Ala'a.

My soldiers and I volunteered at the Mother Theresa Orphanage in Baghdad, Iraq. I did not choose Ala'a, Ala' a chose me.

When the sisters informed me that they were going to have to move him to the government orphanage, I instantly told them that I would adopt them. There were a number of obstacles to bringing him to the United States. Not having enough money and not having a stable enough career, not having a wife.

But I could not, as a Christian man, walk away from that little boy. It really was a step of faith for me to just put that into action. He's a good little boy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am.

SOUTHWORTH: I know you are.

It's been what, two and a half years since I picked Ala'a up in Baghdad? He's learning how to walk. He's doing addition and subtraction. He's learning to read the English language. He's just a brilliant little boy.

Come on, work those legs.

He's limited by some of the things he can do physically, but I never treat Ala'a as though he's disabled.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I love you.

SOUTHWORTH: I love you too, my buddy.

Ala'a is so much more a blessing to me than I am to him. I felt a ton of sympathy for Ala'a when I was in Iraq. But Ala'a didn't need my sympathy. What he needed was some action.
(END VIDEOTAPE)

And so now he thinks sex education is child abuse?

Re:Same guy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769590)

Am I alone feeling that this transcript sounds like a robot answering a bad copy of Billy Mays?

Re:Same guy? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#31769656)

No, he is a person who thinks his views are above everything else, and that killings OK if you do it for your country. Ignoring the fact he is a trained killer.

Applied skills (5, Insightful)

cffrost (885375) | about 4 years ago | (#31769438)

I'd love to hear a good argument for the benefit gained by kids engaging in sex not knowing how to use condoms.

that's not the argument being made (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769714)

The basic idea here is that if you don't let kids know about condoms and how to use them, they'll be less likely to have sex. Presumably because 1) it's less likely to occur to them that having sex is possible, and 2) knowing how to use condoms makes them think having sex carries no risk.

It's dumb as shit, of course, as reasoning goes, and not borne out by studies of abstinence-only sex ed. vs non-fundie sex ed.

Re:Applied skills (5, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 4 years ago | (#31769814)

That's the problem though, there is this misguided belief that telling teens not to have sex is effective sex education. Last I read, at most, it leads to on average, about a six month delay of sex activity, and engaging in riskier behaviors because they're not taught about any measures of protection.

Re:Applied skills (1)

deblau (68023) | about 4 years ago | (#31769828)

According to the DA, children who do not learn how to use condoms are sexually assaulted less often and in lesser degree. I mean, that's obvious, right?

Someone needs a firing... (2, Insightful)

Derekloffin (741455) | about 4 years ago | (#31769446)

I mean, if you got issue with the law, then take it to the law makers. Don't take it out on the freaking teachers.

Re:Someone needs a firing... (2, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 4 years ago | (#31769530)

I'm sure the guy knows that the odds of a successful prosecution are nil. He's grandstanding for God.

Re:Someone needs a firing... (4, Funny)

Derekloffin (741455) | about 4 years ago | (#31769630)

And if there is any justice in this world, God will smack him upside the head, call him an idiot, and send him back to Earth to be reborn to an unwed 14 year old mother.

Why not make it voluntary? (1, Interesting)

Droideka-TheGuy (1482159) | about 4 years ago | (#31769466)

Why do they require this? Christian families (Such as my own) don't want our kids to learn this at school. It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home. However, I'm not saying that it should be banned. But why not make it voluntary? Parents should be able to choose whether or not sex-ed is right for their own kid. The state shouldn't tell us that our kids have to go through their particular sex-ed programs. I remember when my dad gave me "The talk". Most awkward ten minutes of my life, but there is no way I'd have wanted to learn that in school. If it was a voluntary program, I doubt there would be so much fuss over this.

Re:Why not make it voluntary? (5, Informative)

Derekloffin (741455) | about 4 years ago | (#31769520)

If you RTA, you will see it IS voluntary. Schools need not do it, and you can have your kid not attend it if they do.

Re:Why not make it voluntary? (1)

Droideka-TheGuy (1482159) | about 4 years ago | (#31769556)

But why not make the school simply not make the curriculum mandatory? I read the article. The schools don't have to make the program happen, but the schools that do make everyone take it.

Re:Why not make it voluntary? (3, Informative)

Derekloffin (741455) | about 4 years ago | (#31769580)

"The new law continues to let parents remove their children from sex-ed classes, and schools can also not offer such instruction."

Re:Why not make it voluntary? (3, Informative)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 4 years ago | (#31769540)

I was going to moderate this thread, but I had to point out that the law is not mandatory at either the school or student level. Schools can choose not to teach sexual education. Parents can opt their children out of it as well. That's why this prosecutor is being so fricking ridiculous. If the legislature, school, and parents decide that this education will help their children, who is this prosecutor to say otherwise? I hope someone sues.

Re:Why not make it voluntary? (3, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 years ago | (#31769560)

It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home.

      Public health and public safety have nothing to do with your personal belief. Which is why you will be vaccinated regardless. Newborns will be screened for metabolic disease regardless. You will be ticketed for speeding regardless. And your kids will receive certain information at school regardless.

      Because while YOU may be a responsible parent, there is a significant number of IRRESPONSIBLE parents. The idea is that the government must ensure that this information is made available to everyone because kids contracting HIV, Hepatitis B/C or gonorrhea, for example, are a PUBLIC HEALTH risk.

      Especially in a public health care setting, where it is the taxpayer who is/will be footing the bill for treatment.

Re:Why not make it voluntary? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769610)

Do you really think that would be helpful?
So 3/4 of the class learn about sex in a classroom environment within curriculum guidelines, while your kid sits in the library, none the wiser about sex as it being an awkward topic that you have not initiated (if you had, then surely there'd be no worries to let him sit in on the class.
Then guess what?
He gets his sex education filtered from the other kids on the playground, while you sit at home wondering if 15 is old enough for a "birds and bees" metaphor.
Tell Ozzy and Harriet I said "Fuck off."

Re:Why not make it voluntary? (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#31769628)

If you haven't talked to your kids by the time the school has them in this program, you're too late.

That said, I would be very surprised if you couldn't get religious exception. Sad, but true. I mean if the only way you can force your religion on your children is through ignorance, then maybe you should sit down and have a hard long think about your views?

And teaching someone to use a condom isn't a sin.

Your dad covered condom use? diaphragm use? the effectiveness of other birth control method? the risk of the rhythm method? the risk of AIDS? how the uterus works? the treatment for VD? Risks of oral sex? Blood pressure? all in 10 minutes.

I don't think so.

Your child might have sex before marriage. If they make the decision, wouldn't you rather they where knowledgeable about the subject? Isn't it better the a boy understands how a womens body works? Personal, I prefer knowledge of a mysterious black box.*

"I doubt there would be so much fuss over this."
Not me, sorry I've seen the wackos complain about volunteer programs to.

Bottom line:
I would wager 100 dollars that you can get a religious exemption, and that this guy just doesn't wants to shove his mid begotten beliefs down everyones throat.

No pun intended...but man, it would have been a good one.

Re:Why not make it voluntary? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 4 years ago | (#31769792)

I remember when my dad gave me "The talk". Most awkward ten minutes of my life, but there is no way I'd have wanted to learn that in school.

If you'd learned it in school, you'd have learned a hell of a lot more than whatever your dad managed to cram into ten minutes.

I'm glad as hell I had a thorough education that wasn't limited to what my dad knew and was willing to say in front of his son. Not that he didn't do it, it's just that class was a) not awkward at all after getting over my own juvenility (if that's a word) and b) VASTLY more informative.

If it was a voluntary program, I doubt there would be so much fuss over this.

Well you doubt wrong. The only thing mandatory is the curriculum of the class, not participation.

Bullshit Detector (2, Insightful)

Spatial (1235392) | about 4 years ago | (#31769470)

promotes the sexualization — and sexual assault — of our children.

That pegged my bullshit detector. In fact I think it broke the peg clean off.

Re:Bullshit Detector (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 years ago | (#31769734)

In fact I think it broke the peg clean off.

A condom may not have helped you there if it broke off rather than rotted off.

US Legislators (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769492)

There's just too many that have a strong christian "free church" background, or at least such an electorate. The sort of people who can't really have it that evolution happens and that the world wasn't created in one day, much in the way they can't have it that humans, unlike every other mammal on earth, can have sex without marriage - and some more can't have it that sex is not done in fashion that results in offspring.

He's another twit (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#31769504)

using the school system to shove his religious views down everyones throats.

He thinks learning about condoms cause people to rape more.

Fucking idiot.

Re:He's another twit (2, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 4 years ago | (#31769566)

He doesn't even make sense in his own fantasy land. I think he means statutory sexual assault--if kids are having sex with kids, then they're being victimized if they're underaged. However, statutory rape doesn't apply when both parties have consented, but are both underaged. It's called the Romeo and Juliet rule. Methinks this prosecutor should read the laws again before making grandiose pronouncements; after all, it's his FUCKING JOB to do so.

Re:He's another twit (1)

cynyr (703126) | about 4 years ago | (#31769826)

actually it looks like he's saying that there is a law on the books that says doing exactly what this new sex ed program does is illegal.

"If a teacher instructs any student aged 16 or younger how to utilize contraceptives under circumstances where the teacher knows the child is engaging in sexual activity with another child -- or even where the 'natural and probable consequences' of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child -- that teacher can be charged under this statute" of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. ..."

"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks.""

so maybe he is somewhere in the middle, but i didn't see any mention of god or religion anywhere in there. It is just a county DA and i would have expected the state DA to be involved at the state level. If the law does have some sort of inducement clause like this guy says, I can see how this might be a problem for the school districts/teachers involved.

Condoms don't make babies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769512)

People do.

Promotes sexual assault? Have my ears gone insane? (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 4 years ago | (#31769546)

Hey says it "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children."

Okay okay I can barely understand the first part. By teaching kids about sex and contraception, you are in a way acknowledging that they are or will be sexual beings, and I guess going from stubbornly and blindly refusing to acknowledge kids' sexuality to acknowledging the possibility could be called "promoting"... In a society as hung up about sex as ours, I can see how that reasoning comes about.

But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work? Is there a section in the class about how to be a rape victim? A video about how cool PTSD and group counseling are? Or is it that would-be predators will see the worldly look in the newly-educated kid's eyes and think "Ah, that one's fair game, he's practically asking for it!"

Fuck, nevermind. I don't even want to know what went on inside their head in the course of making the connection between sex ed and sexual assault.

Oh wait, I forgot, what went on was nothing. "Think of the children" means "For heaven's sake, don't think!"

Re:Promotes sexual assault? Have my ears gone insa (1)

vxice (1690200) | about 4 years ago | (#31769646)

most likely the "sexual assault" would be forcing children, or whose parents, who don't want to learn to learn this material. I'm no lawyer but I know that 'talking' someone into sex who is not expected to know the implications of their actions is also illegal so taking advantage of children who don't fully understand the meaning of the class and might object to learning the material if they were more developed could also be construed as assault or violation. Next time remember that things that appear insane to you are most likely logical to someone with either more knowledge or a different value set than you.

Re:Promotes sexual assault? Have my ears gone insa (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769664)

He says it "promotes the sexualization -- and sexual assault -- of our children."

News flash: adolescents are not children. They're adolescents, which means they're approaching sexual maturity. They deserve to know what it's all about.

And since when is it illegal to promote knowledge about anything??

EndGame (4, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 4 years ago | (#31769570)

At last, 10 years of Paedophile and Child Pornography hysteria are beginning to pay off dividends. It begins with Sex Education classes, which by now are probably liability time bombs for all adults involved. It won't end there though. This has been the Endgame all along; a return to the social mores of the 1950s or earlier.

Child porn hysteria is toppling the fucking Catholic Church! What hope does your feeble "Free Society" have?

I know what the secret plan is... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769602)

The atheists and devil-worshippers are trying to convince us that giving kids knowledge about sex will prevent things like STDs, AIDS, and pregnancies, but that is simply not true.

The Bible, the most authoritative source on the subject, clearly points out that knowledge is the root of all evil. For example, in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. A True Believer of the Lord can only interpret that in one way: Knowledge is Evil, and it is our duty to make sure our children are as poorly educated as possible.

Not just in regards to sex, but in other subjects, too. I have never allowed either of my children to attend school, and I forbid them to read anything except the Bible. I taught them enough english to understand it, and very little else. We do not have a television in our house, nor do we have a computer. For those wondering, I am typing this up at an internet cafe. I do this for their safety, as it is my duty to protect them from the dangers of the world. I despise my parents for making me go to college, and as a parent, I feel it is my responsibility to do things the Right Way. The Only Way.

The Way God Wants Me To Do Things.

Just Plain Misguided (2, Interesting)

SplicerNYC (1782242) | about 4 years ago | (#31769624)

Teaching kids safe sex is crucial but all this person sees is "sexualization"? It doesn't make me question sex-ed, it makes me question what's in the mind of this D.A.

Sex Ed is a needed course (2, Insightful)

Kitkoan (1719118) | about 4 years ago | (#31769648)

To not show how to have safe sex is pretty much to rely on either teaching the kids nothing and let them learn the hard way, or teach abstinence in the schools. Problem is, abstinence doesn't work. [reuters.com] This has been shown many times.

And to not show any safe sex information is worse, as shown in in China where they don't teach much about safe sex [slate.com] and this leads to many unwanted pregnancies. Teens are bombarded with images and messages of sex every day, even in places like the supermarket where the latest issues of magazines like Cosmo, [gagadaily.com] scream sex on their covers for all to see. Then you have ads from companies like American Apparel [google.ca] . These images just play on teenage hormones so teens need to learn this since it's thrown at them so much and so often. And we can already see what happens if we don't.

Condoms and Seatbelts (5, Insightful)

Databass (254179) | about 4 years ago | (#31769662)

Condoms/contraceptives are to sex as seat belts are to driving: useful tools that can prevent unplanned, life-altering events.

Some people might argue that teaching teens how to use seatbelts somehow makes them more likely to drive recklessly. Or that teaching about seat belts will increase their feelings of invincibility and trivialize the risks related to driving. I would say that teens that are aware of the reason for seatbelts will be more sober about the realities behind them. Those responsible enough to buckle up are those more likely to drive safely instead of recklessly.

DA Southworth wants to criminilize knowledge of sexual protection for teens at the same age we allow them to begin driving. We can't pretend that ignoring the teen desire to drive cars is going to reduce it. Teens naturally want freedom, want to drive, and they will even if we ignore proper training. If anything, it should be criminal NOT to teach teens critical skills that can prevent derailing lives- and these skills include driver safety and safe sex both.

The AP Story (1)

Mr_Blank (172031) | about 4 years ago | (#31769696)

The Associated Press Story [google.com] is a bit more informative than the USA Today blog entry in TFA.

  This is the part that boggles me...

Southworth also argued that teaching contraceptive use encourages sexual behavior among children, which equates to sexual assault because minors can't legally have sex in Wisconsin.

  The arbitrary line between "minors" and "adults" having sex is strange enough. Any law forbidding consenting adults is completely ridiculous. Saying that two "minors" can't go at it truly boggles because who's going to know, who's going to care, and what punishment could be worse than NOT fulfilling the biological urge with someone else who has that urge? ... I figure that is how many teens are looking at it, anyhow.

    I wonder if the law also intends that minors can not legally have solo-sex? Craziness...

More stupidity (1)

selven (1556643) | about 4 years ago | (#31769712)

"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."

No, it's akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then teaching them how to say no to the second bottle of beer. They're not teaching people sex positions here, they're providing (or at least trying to provide) basic safety advice.

I love the very last sentence of TFA (1)

magsol (1406749) | about 4 years ago | (#31769736)

One district that received the letter said it had not taught sex ed for years.

So glad the kids are being taught about their own sexuality, rather than being inundated with guilt and mystery and likely engaging in risky behavior.

what a piece of crap (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 4 years ago | (#31769762)

I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do.

If you had "enough work to do", you wouldn't have written this letter. Hopefully after the next election that won't be a problem for you...

I remember in HS (3, Funny)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | about 4 years ago | (#31769806)

I remember getting excused from sexual education in high school. It was abstinence education, with no practical skills taught. Basically they showed us a bunch of nasty pictures and told us to not fuck, suck, or kiss. I spent hours surfing the web while my taxes went towards hours of wasted time. It was funny how confused they were about my "religion" that forbids me from learning sexual education that is solely abstinence. Luckily, I basically told them to fuck off and quit prying and they did.

Yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769810)

When he gets one in hoop he'll wish they were wearing a condom

Morality meets ignorance. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 4 years ago | (#31769834)

Apparently, casting calls came up shorthanded for MTVs "16 and Pregnant" show. Looks like they won't have a shortage now.

What in the fuck has this world come to when someone can actually classify teaching how to use a condom as "sexual assault"?

Apparently that same someone hasn't ever had a typo entering a URL either.

Email? Contact info? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31769848)

Is there any way we can contact this nutcase and tell him how absolutely batsh*t insane he is?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...