Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have things changed so much with the passage of time that children of this age today will view it purely as a scientific and educational experience and not as something salacious, especially in the public setting of a museum?
Don't kids at the beginning of puberty today still snicker and titter a bit when the subject of sex, sexual anatomy, etc. comes up, especially in a setting of both sexes? Or are they all so mature at that age today that it's just another boring fact of life, like sweat glands?
Self-flattery will get you nowhere.
The point is that the RWNJs seldom make sense.
Human anatomy and various body functions are not opinions, but facts. Those facts will not change according to the opinions of religious zealots.
Nice slide from "opinion vs. fact about the appropriateness of the display" to "opinion vs. fact regarding the accuracy of the display." Now, why not remove the ice skates and step into reality. Or better yet, step back into the woods, as I suspect you are a Troll.
So what? They're 12; not 5. In this day in age, I wouldn't doubt that most 12-year-olds have access to porn.
As long as they're not telling middle schoolers to go out and have sex, I see nothing wrong with them being educated on the issue.
Some would argue that it is encouraging these youngsters to initiate sex at a younger age; that the larger than life nude displays with light up errogenous zones, presentations of chocolate flavored condoms and tips on flirting as well as the "benefits" of multiple partners are more than just "educating" 12 year olds in the area of the human body and reproduction and in fact the $800,000 of tax payer money is being used to indoctrinate children into a casual, meaningless, hedonistic view of sexuality that may differ sharply from their family's values.
Some would argue that it is encouraging these youngsters to initiate sex at a younger age;
Only some who are in denial, paranoid, and obviously unaware of the positive benefits of comprehensive sex ed and open discussions about sex.
Quote:
that the larger than life nude displays with light up errogenous zones, presentations of chocolate flavored condoms and tips on flirting as well as the "benefits" of multiple partners are more than just "educating" 12 year olds in the area of the human body and reproduction and in fact the $800,000 of tax payer money is being used to indoctrinate children into a casual, meaningless, hedonistic view of sexuality that may differ sharply from their family's values.
LOL. If this museum display doesn't jive with a family's "values," they can choose not to take their children. Again, it is quite a simple concept.
Some would argue that it is encouraging these youngsters to initiate sex at a younger age; that the larger than life nude displays with light up errogenous zones, presentations of chocolate flavored condoms and tips on flirting as well as the "benefits" of multiple partners are more than just "educating" 12 year olds in the area of the human body and reproduction and in fact the $800,000 of tax payer money is being used to indoctrinate children into a casual, meaningless, hedonistic view of sexuality that may differ sharply from their family's values.
And?
Nothing about this is mandatory.
Don't want your kid to see it, don't give permission for the field trip.
Some would argue that it is encouraging these youngsters to initiate sex at a younger age; that the larger than life nude displays with light up errogenous zones, presentations of chocolate flavored condoms and tips on flirting as well as the "benefits" of multiple partners are more than just "educating" 12 year olds in the area of the human body and reproduction and in fact the $800,000 of tax payer money is being used to indoctrinate children into a casual, meaningless, hedonistic view of sexuality that may differ sharply from their family's values.
I hadn't clicked the second link where these points were specified. I wouldn't let my kid view such an exhibit. As others have brought up, though, it isn't mandatory, so I'm not sure what the outrage is about.
How about the recent unveiling on a city street in Chicago of the huge Marilyn Monroe statue posed as she appeared over the subway grate in Seven Year Itch with her dress blown high.
Pictures of the statue show one kid actually trying to shinny up her leg to "cop a feel" higher up.
Another photo showed an entire wedding party of bride and her bridesmaids all taking shelter under Marilyn's dress while looking up and tittering away with their hands over their mouths in feigned modesty.
So what? All of this angst over the sexual nature of the reproduction process of humans from homophobia to this latest non-issue simply serves to illustrate we have a long way to go before we're truly at ease with ourselves and our place as mere specs of dust in the universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
