The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

What JW said. Some of us think it is inadvisable to 'sexualize' young children and kids should just be allowed to be kids and be educated on a 'need to know' basis about stuff like that. I don't know what the content of the cartoon is or whether or not it was inappropriate for young children. I wonder if Nimh has seen it?

And I wonder why we sometimes jump to immediate negative conclusions or are ready to condemn without knowing the context in which something is said?

0 Replies

JW is damn right. You are talking about children. Lesbianism--or whatever we're calling it --is a sexual term. Parents have the right to educate their children about sex at the time of their choosing, and in a method of their choosing.

I don't know how old the kids in question are--but if the cartoon is about "Buster", seems like they may be in elementary school.

This is not elementary school material. It is inappropriate for children that young. I would sue the **** out of a school that took it upon themselves to initiate sex education in such a manner. Parents deserve the right to make that decision.

I would be less concerned about Middle School children's initiation into comparable subjects.

0 Replies

This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with sex education. Nor with schools.

It is an administration (Spellings) threat to PBS that its funding contribution from the D of Ed will be in jeopardy if PBS includes programming for young viewers (preschool/early school in this case) that depicts or reveals instances of quite normal and happy families where parents are same gender.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40188-2005Jan26.html

0 Replies

We might add, in keeping with this thread's title, that if a show turned up on PBS which depicted a visit to the Cheney household at Christmas, Spellings would have to threaten consequences to government funding of PBS because too many parents might be offended at the perverse domestic relationship shown.

0 Replies

It is confusing to most very young children. Let them get a handle on the norm, before they get a whiff of the abnorm.

Pre-emptive-->abnormal--different from the average.

0 Replies

Abnormal...non-christian faith, odd clothing, unusual language, physical deformities or extremes, six fingers.

0 Replies

None of those involve a sexual education.

Really. Don't you think it is a parent's right to have the first whack at sex ed with their child?

0 Replies

I do not have 6 fingers on either hand (my toes however)

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

None of those involve a sexual education.

Really. Don't you think it is a parent's right to have the first whack at sex ed with their child?

In my experience far too many parents have had "first whack" at sex ed with children (theirs or others)

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

None of those involve a sexual education.

Really. Don't you think it is a parent's right to have the first whack at sex ed with their child?

Maybe, but that's a different question.

This is not "here is what an erect penis looks like...this is where it goes...these are the feelings and sensations commonly experienced by boys and girls...this is how pregnancy occurs...these are the means by which unwanted pregnancy can occur...", etc.

You place this issue in your category of 'sex ed' in order to facilitate a particular species of government control regarding what is or is not to be considered 'normal', in the eyes of the state. Really long hair on a boy's head and a crewcut on a girl's head...abnormal...wrong.

You do get, do you, that Spellings' position leads directly to that consequence I drew of a Christmas show for children at the Cheney's house? And it would be that rationale I alluded to...perverse relationship.

0 Replies

Pictures of a group of family members (Cheney's included) wherein there are lesbians, or assorted non-active pairings of homosexual sex partners couldn't screw up a child's psyche.

I would have to see the cartoon in question to see how these "lesbians" are portrayed as such. If they're just dressed like the Indigo Girls--it should be OK.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What JW said. Some of us think it is inadvisable to 'sexualize' young children and kids should just be allowed to be kids and be educated on a 'need to know' basis about stuff like that. I don't know what the content of the cartoon is or whether or not it was inappropriate for young children. I wonder if Nimh has seen it?

According to the article, the cartoon features the "title character visiting Vermont, where he encounters lesbian couples and learns about maple sugaring."

How "sexualising" do you consider watching two women sharing a house and making maple sugar? Damn, and I thought I had a dirty mind! Razz

Nah, jumping to conclusions here, of course - I dont know, from this text, if the lesbian couple was maplesugaring or what else. Hey, but - if you dont want to judge without knowing the full context, having more details, etc, I'm sure a simple Google search will suffice (or clicking on Blatham's link or something) ... Find out and tell us about what in the cartoon is "sexualising"! Then at least we'll know what the issue is ...

0 Replies

I am thinking that this "issue" is so tightly wrapped up with an agenda against PBS that the "issue" is barely relevant. The Bush admin will never forget Bill Moyers.

0 Replies

Or perhaps I can jumpcut it, after all.

Simple question: does coming across a lesbian couple (in a cartoon, making maple syrup - or, for that matter, on the street, buying groceries) in itself constitute "sexual education"?

Is there a difference between coming across a lesbian couple on screen or in the street (or even at your house, you might have a gay or lesbian cousin or neighbour or acquaintance after all)?

At the moment, I am getting the idea that some of you folks seem to look upon gays and lesbians as if the very sight of them must conjure up acts of sex. But if your kid can see Barbie & Ken together without having to be explained what sex is, why wouldnt they be able/allowed to see Ken & Ken without being explained what sex is?

When does the appearance of a lesbian couple in a cartoon become "sex ed"? When they share a house? When they walk hand in hand? When the one kisses the other on the cheek when she comes home from work?

How's that compare, for example, with your gay or lesbian cousin, neighbour, colleague (if you have one, otherwise hypothesise)? If you (would) have a kid at home, would you not want them to come over with partner? Or would you not mind as long as they ... what? Not hold hands? Not say out loud, "my girlfriend"? Would it be bad if your kid saw them dance together at a wedding? When does the 'confrontation' with a gay or lesbian become "sex ed"?

I mean, I think we can safely assume the cartoon did not have them making out or anything ...

I'm seriously interested here, just because the sentiment is so totally alien to me ...

0 Replies

it's truely an american thing Nimh, we are so obsessed with "sex" (unlike the Brits) we seek it in everyone's closet (again it goes back to the Puritans who detested anyone they thought might be having more fun then they were). and sadly everyone was, ergo, they detested everyone.

0 Replies

I don't mind explaining. I've had two children--and I know it sounds crappy--but I think in order to understand this issue--you would have to have kids. Now, I know in about 2.1 seconds, BPB will drop by to let us know he showed his children explicit homo love tapes, and they were unscathed. <Just a pre-emptive.>

Anyway. As a parent, one has the right to shield their children from the sex talk or confusing sexual images--or other stuff. I hope we can agree that is a given. If the world doesn't mind--some people would like to give their children a few years on this earth without contemplating sex, murder, violence, death, taxes...

Point 2 is this: If a parent has decided to shield their children from confusing, sad or frightening issues until they are older--they are happily running about being a kid--as they should--and their idea of a family is a mommy and a daddy--or whatever parents are in their world. The parent may just want to wait until their child is older to shatter their happy little world with rape, homos, Monica Lewinski, alternate uses for cigars and Form 1040. Some parents won't be negative about homosexuality. They just want the right to make the decision of when to discuss it. Those defending a woman's right to ABORT her baby should be very understanding. We just want the right to decide when our children are ready to know about certain things.

When a kid sees ...two mommies... this takes the parent's choice of timing away from them. They can never get it back. I believe strongly it is a parent's choice, based on their knowledge of their child's maurity and personality to introduce certain aspects of life.

0 Replies

nimh - I don't get it either.

Today as I came back from the hair salon, I met two women walking down my street arm in arm. I have no idea whether they were friends, mother and daughter, or lovers. None of my neighbours seemed to have any need to drag their children inside, away from the sight. I also don't think anyone was going to be having any 'special' discussions as a result.

I sometimes hold hands with my friend B. We hug a lot. I'd be surprised if anyone gave it a thought here. 20 or 30 years ago in our hometown, it would have been noticed/commented on. Maybe.

Interesting thought about the rights of the parents v the rights of the community, Lash. It's been gone over a few times here. I don't think there's agreement on the point.

0 Replies

I wouldn't take the rights to be a lesbian or to live freely and unencumbered from anyone. But, don't produce a publicly broadcast segment in a cartoon, aimed at small children featuring lesbians--and think some people aren't going to likely shut you down.

But, you're right. I don't think there's agreement on the point, either.

I just wanted to put my side of the story out here with the other ones. Not planning a lesbo dragnet... <heh> <they'd love that, wouldn't they...>

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I would have to see the cartoon in question to see how these "lesbians" are portrayed as such. If they're just dressed like the Indigo Girls--it should be OK.

I was actually quite puzzled by how this would be portrayed. I have a number of lesbian friends. None of them could be mistaken for Indigo Girls. They're more likely to be mistaken for Kelly Ripa, or maybe Angie Harmon.

0 Replies

do we think Buster's going to get away with this one either?

Quote:

Tuesday Feb 8 5:30pm
A Sense of Direction (Chicago, Illinois)
At the Sears Tower, Buster meets Farah, a 10 year-old Muslim girl who tells Buster about wearing hijabs, praying towards Mecca, and shopping at her favorite neighborhood Pakistani shops. Buster is intrigued with how Farah's Muslim parochial school is both different and the same as his own. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: Children will gain some understanding of the cultural attributes of a Pakistani family and a Muslim school in Chicago. They will observe similarities and differences between their own experiences and the experiences of Pakistani/Muslim children and families. For children who are in the process of learning English, this episode models ways to introduce others, give directions, and ask questions to learn more about another person and his or her life. It also builds children's familiarity with vocabulary related to school.

I'm sure this one won't get any complaints

Quote:

Monday Feb 7 5:30pm
Meet Me at the Fair (Knox, Indiana)
Feed the cows, take out the garbage, clean the house, all before breakfast?! That's part of life on the farm for sister and brother Lauren and Nathan. But as they show Buster, there's more to living on a farm than chores-like riding horses, driving tractors, and showing off their pigs at the County Fair! EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: Children will gain some understanding of life on a family farm in Indiana. They will observe similarities and differences between their own experiences and the experiences of this Midwest farm family. For children who are in the process of learning English, this episode models ways to greet and make new friends and ask questions to learn more about their lives. It also builds children's familiarity with vocabulary related to farm animals and action verbs.

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know