Bradford Plumer of paleo-neoconservative The New Republic has done a pretty good job of what actual journalists used to be incredibly good at: reporting rather than regurgitation-punctuated-with-“to-be-sure”.
Back story: Illinois Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama recently spoke favorably of age-appropriate sex education beginning in kindergarten. Presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has been wetting his pants about it.
Plumer reports:
Anyway, I was trying to find a better explanation of what Obama’s views actually were, since the ABC story wasn’t terribly clear, and came across David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network—that’s Pat Robertson’s outfit, mind you—who had the sensible, level-headed take on all of this. Apparently, Obama’s spokeswoman claims the senator was merely talking about teaching kids “the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching.” And Brody thinks Romney was being “misleading” for suggesting that “Obama is ok with the condoms and cucumber approach.” So… there you go.
Now it’s worth pointing out that Massachusetts under Governor Romney had — and has — the kind of early sex-ed program Obama was talking about. But this post isn’t about what a fucking hypocrite Romney is (though he is that too.) It’s about why Massachusetts scores higher on teen and early adult public health and welfare outcomes than certain other states.
I know it sounds odd but by slowly trickling out information about human sexuality, beginning way, way before most children are exposed to impulses of their own, nominally “libidinous” parts of the country also have far less pressure build-up and therefore fewer omigodwhat’sthisfeeling-omigodlookwhatwecandowithout peepees-omigoditfeelssogood-omigodIwantitmoreandmoreandmore-omigodrubberswhatarerubbers-omigodthepregnancystripturnedblue-omigodhowcanthathavehappened eruptions than their more nominally “abstimentious” counterparts in other regions. And consequently they have fewer, and sometimes far fewer, far later in adolescent outbreaks of whatever it is Romney’s newfound “target demographics” are (justifiably) worried about.
Submitted by 1496 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-07-21 11:18.
It is not Romney's statement that I worry about having influence, but the right blogoshpere which always takes remarks out of context, exaggerates and moralizes; aka the usual suspects. They will not accept any explanation outside their interpretation of the facts. In this case the spokeswoman for Obama is being deceptive. One blog had a banana covered by a cucumber condom picture, I think. I wasn't quite sure, so I went back to take a look again, the picture has been taken down.
[As the parent of elementary-age parents, including a ten-year-old who can be astonishingly snarkily legalistic. ("But Dad you just said 'did you brush your teeth?' You didn't say you wanted me to actually *brush* them... so how was *I* supposed to know?!?!") That the "usual suspects" you mention seem to operate at that "uh, huh, teacher said so I'm tellin'" level rather than engaging on actual issues of substance (the way my children do) just totally gets on my nerves. Thank you Five. --fl]
Submitted by 1496 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-07-20 21:00.
Ugh! I could feel my blood pressure rising as I watched that clip of Mitt Romney. I have two elementary school aged boys, and they learned about sex exactly when they were ready. How did I know? They asked! And it was long before kindergarten. If you have more than one child and they are at least a couple years apart, you're going to get questions about where the baby came from. I answered their questions as they came up, in a way they could understand. Children are born curious, and I want mine to know that I will help them learn as much as I can throughout their lives. Knowledge really is power.
[I know -- it's like... it's like... in a highly-sexualized (but sex-deprived) environment like ours, if you wait to have a sit-down with a child until he or she is 21 they're going to be just all screwed up. It's the same for reading, by the way, where if you don't learn before roughly age 7 1/2 or 8 you're basically never gonna read as well. Thanks, Totem. --fl]