Previous post
When we had our son we started discussing our plans for his educational future, and very quickly came to the agreement that putting him in public schools was simply not an option in Oregon. This was not just because Oregon boasts the second worst graduation rate (68%-second to Nevada in 2012) in the nation but because we just cannot understand why any school district would have a student to teacher ratio of 19.2 students to every one teacher, and frankly why Kindergarden students at a local school (rumored to be the BEST in the district) were allowed to roam the halls without any adult supervision on a recent visit.
As graduates of the Catholic education system in our home state, my husband and I decided to send our son to Catholic schools. After reading a blog posting about some of the approved reading materials in fourth grade classrooms in Tennessee I felt that our choice was reaffirmed. After all, Tennesee is by and large a much more conservative state than Oregon and I figure if their schools are approving this swill for their fourth graders, what our son sees by the time he makes it to fourth grade might be even more pornographic. Keep in mind, if these were actual pictures, not illustrations, they would be illegal. Because they are illustrations, its perfectly ok to show underage children involved in masturbation.
I do not consider myself a prude by any stretch of the imagination-some of my previous modeling gigs prove that (I was fully clothed BTW)-but images like this being shown to children arouse the following emotions in me:
1) Anger-Why the heck does a child of that age need to see graphic depictions of these acts in their school books?
2) Confusion-Why is the school taking on this CLEAR parental responsibility? It is MY job as a parent to partner with my husband to help our son understand his body and his sexuality. I do not trust the state to educate him about these important aspects of humanity.
3) Disgust-Viewing illustrations of a small child engaged in masturbation makes me sick to my stomach. Call me old school, I understand that kids naturally explore their bodies, but this is a bridge too far for me. Sexualizing a natural, innocent exploration is sickening.
This is exactly why we as parents need to be engaged with our children’s schools, look at their textbooks and protest when we see things that are inappropriate, or factually inaccurate. This is why vouchers are such a wonderful idea for education in all states as well. If public schools see a steady decline in enrollment and hear the feedback that things like these books are a contributing factor to their declining enrollment, perhaps they will think twice before taking even more drastic steps forward with initiatives like Common Core.
ALman says: At some time, I think I read some material that addressed the psychological, social, and in physical impact on children who were abused, in any manner whatsoever. Now, I’m wondering, if what your article is about is a form of abuse? In other words, regardless of the intent, can children be exposed to so much information which is beyond their capability that their growth is actually stunted?
Perhaps, the children demonstrate an adequate assimilation of the material, cope with it, and seem to show a maturity concerning this. Yet, in later life (few years or more), catalysts come into play that cause a regression in their attitudes and behavior. While I didn’t begin with this intent, I find myself wondering about Miley Cyrus and whether she might be an example of such a phenomenon, should on exist?
Jennifer says: ALman,
Yes I believe that seeing graphic images too early can be a form of sexual abuse. The effects of too much information too soon can be traumatic and can certainly cause trauma which will come out later on in the child’s life. I think this is a continuation of the sexualization of our children (something people like Miley Cyrus just contribute to) and one that needs to stop. I support age appropriate information on human sexuality being covered but I think it should be discussed first and foremost in the home with the parents. Later on, in Junior High and High School I think that more information is ok-but should be presented without bias in a factual manner. Anything beyond the basic, biological birds and the bees should happen at home unless it is a school nurse addressing a student directly, whose information should also be made available to the parents. As a former peer AIDS counsellor in High School I feel very strongly that we arm our children with the information necessary to protect themselves from disease (80% of sexually active adults in LA when I lived there circa 1993-95 were positive for human pappiloma virus, imagine what it is today!), information should always be AGE APPROPRIATE.
Thanks again for your on target insights!
GWB says: I do not trust the state to educate him about these important aspects of humanity.
The problem is the reflexive statement by the progressives:
I do not trust the parents to educate their children about these important aspects of humanity.
You really should have worked the blog’s reference to Brave New World into your post, though. That book is not nearly widely read enough for its clarity on where the progressives are going.
And, what modeling gigs? Links? Pictures or it didn’t happen.
Ummm… did I type that out loud? o.O
3 Comments