|
December 19, 2004
Innocence is touching
Here's something communitarians of all persuasions can seize upon in blaming everyone except the guilty: Shocking sex acts in schoolsIt's a very long article, but it appears that the kids are either imitating stuff they've seen their parents do, or else the parents couldn't be bothered to pay attention to the stuff their kids read, or watch on line. What years ago used to be natural curiosity that manifested itself in "playing doctor" or "show and tell" has taken on a more aggressive and sexual tone in some children, who are exhibiting acts that should be far beyond their knowledge.The school plans to implement "screening" and of course, "counseling." And they're not going to allow more than one child at a time to use restrooms. When I was a kid all the kids took bathroom breaks at the same time, and the boys peed in a long trough. Now it's One. At. A. Time. Any wonder why there's no time to learn anything? It would never occur to anyone that the tiny minority of kids who behave this way might not belong in school. For whatever reason, they're wildly dysfunctional, and I don't see why the other kids should be made to tolerate sexual abuse at their hands, any more than they should have to tolerate violent behavior. Schools are more and more like prisons -- with more and more prison-like behavior occurring. I realize that the communitarian approach is to blame "society" -- which includes me. But just because I live in the same world and my taxes pay for the same slop that goes into the same trough, how am I in any way responsible for where some kid sticks his little peepee -- any more than I am to be blamed if he had a gun? It is this conflict -- a basic inability to see the same set of facts in the same way -- which drives the "Culture War." It is as self apparent to me that I am not responsible for the conduct of others as it is to some people that I am. This is not rational, nor is it easy to debate, because people lose their rationality when they are blamed for conduct with which they had nothing to do. In "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore blamed entertainer Dick Clark (I am serious, folks) for the fact that a six year old girl was shot to death by a little boy in school. I know Moore is an abject demagogue and an extreme case, but there were all sorts of attempts on all sides by people to blame their favorite enemies for the Columbine shooting. Like we're all involved in a vast national Lockheed U.S. military Gay Goth Trenchcoat Mafia plot, or something. (I guess it would have been worse had Harris and Klebold been in the first grade....) What is it about children which invites hysteria? Their alleged innocence? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as childhood "innocence" (something which didn't really stand out as memorable when I was a child), clearly a five year old who sticks his peepee in the face of another five year old has crossed the line separating the innocent from the not-so-innocent. What sort of egalitarianism is it which allows the already-damaged to harm the yet-undamaged, then blames "society"? What sort of egalitarianism puts bureaucratic screening programs in place which (by factoring in sexual abuse as something assumed as a lowest common denominator) might end up treating innocent childish curiosity as a sex crime? I can remember an incident in the second grade when another boy peed on me, and I "returned fire." He went and "told" on me, but fortunately the teacher yelled at both of us, then reminded the whole class of our civic responsibilities. With today's screening and testing, I don't like to think what might happen. Why, I could even imagine some of the bored, smarter kids figuring out how to game the system by pushing society's hot buttons. Hardly a new idea; kids have been engaging in such antics since at least 1692. Of course, Salem had no Ritalin. Or Paxil. posted by Eric on 12.19.04 at 11:21 AM
Comments
Another extremely interesting discussion of sex. Reminds me of Senator Coburn's speech about Lesbianism in the girls' restroom. I'm Conservative stylistically, or a "Jehovanistic-style Gnostic". I'm against the "Naturalists" who want to erase the difference between "everyday reality" and "erotic/aphroditic reality". I'm glad I had never heard of sex at that age. I'm glad I didn't know such a thing existed. I knew girls looked and sounded different from boys, and I was turned on by girls, but I didn't know about that "insert Tab A into Slot B -- out comes baby" stuff until much later. I'm very glad of my ignorance (not innocence, all my fantasies were then and are now extremely wicked). Sex is and must always be mysterious, taboo, forbidden, sacred. After their midnight Mass, Norma will tie Dawn up with a big ribbon and put her under the Christmas tree. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato theElder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · December 20, 2004 05:00 PM "Schools are more and more like prisons -- with more and more prison-like behavior occurring"?? [heh] My extended family is full of "public school" teachers. I've done the gig. For years, I've rfeferred to so-called "public schools" as "prisons for kids" because of the institutional warehousing aspect alone. Children almost instinctually know when they're being hoodwinked about the purpose and function of "public education," and it shows as more and more of them opt out (at earlier and earlier ages) of a civilization that (in suicidal urge) has effectually abandoned them to the Lord of the Flies. (Parents sacrificing their children to Molock, teachers, politicians and administrators sacrificing them to Mammon—take your pick.) David · December 20, 2004 05:21 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Or, how about this:
Why should I pay the social costs that result from parents allowing their children to view pornography on the Internet and not instructing them about social and legal rules regarding sexuality?
Let's say there are a bunch of parents out there who permit their children, knowingly or unknowingly, to view sexually-oriented material on the Internet. Some of these kids are unable to distinguish what part of this constitutes permissible behavior and what does not and, as a result, harrasses or injures one of my children.
Do I then have recourse against the parents?
I think that some segment of people will believe that government has the mandate to pre-emptively control what kind of information is available, so that children are never in a situation where they might view pornography, parents will or no.
Is it enough to just sit around and wait for a crisis to happen?
I have seen some very disturbing sexual material on the Internet. I do not know that this is easily accessible to children. Do we just wait until some child acts out something like this on another child? Or nip it in the bud.