While the content of this particular survey doesn't sound like it falls into this category, in some schools they do begin sex education curriculum in the primary grades. You have to remember that sex education doesn't necessarily insinuate the "sex" we think of as adults. Any kind of intimate act is construed as sex in the sex ed curriuculum. The "real" sex education still begins around the typical middle school age, but by beginning at a younger age the students are exposed to things such as personal space, appropriate/inappropriate touching, private parts, etc. It began as a program to teach children with autism, PDD, Prader-Willie Syndrome, and Down Syndrome appropriate ways to interact with their peers without unknowingly invading another child's personal space. I have a child with PDD in my first grade classroom whom, just the other day, was pointing at another female teacher and inadvertantly poked her right in the breast. She naturally jumped back, and the boy was confused as to why she did so. In his eyes, he had no idea that a breast was a private part and shouldn't be touched. Anyway, the program's mandate spread to the general ed classrooms as a result of sexual predation of children. Children whose parents haven't had any kind of sex talk with their parents are more aware of what is appropriate vs. inappropriate behavior.

Since these children are learning disabled, could it be that this "survey" was part of a program to teach them about keeping safe from sexual predators? Since many sexual predators prey on children, and that learning disabled children could be even more vulnerable, perhaps this was to teach them about the inappropriateness of someone touching them? Or from touching one another?

Just a thought.

I think that main problem here is the religious nuts who are strict about not having sex until marriage. We should give them a warm welcome to reality...

Actually, Patrick, there is absolutely nothing wrong with waiting until marriage to have sex. I think that if someone has that belief, it should not be belittled. It takes an incredible amount of faith and discipline to hold onto it. However, I would also hope that someone who does have that belief would not look down on someone who doesn't share that belief, as I would never look down on someone who does. I think that a person's sexuality, and the choices that they make, are incredibly personal, and should never be mocked. One's beliefs, and the adherence to them, should all be different, otherwise this would be a rather boring world, don't you think??

Right. But there is something wrong when some kids have parents who are nuts and tell them that sex before marriage is a sin and they'll go to hell if they don't wait.

But they do look down on us.

First of all, Patrick, I avoid terms like "them" and "us". I don't like them, because I feel that they lead to divisiveness. And there's nothing wrong with parents who teach their children not to have sex because it's a sin. That's their belief, and they're quite sincere about it. What I would have a problem with is if those same parents wanted to impose those beliefs on others. As I said, beliefs like those are extremely personal, and should remain as such.

Right. But there is something wrong when some kids have parents who are nuts and tell them that sex before marriage is a sin and they'll go to hell if they don't wait.
[/b][/quote]SB is right, Pat! And the question here is not about marriage, but about kids who are in 1-st and third grade!

Right. But there is something wrong when some kids have parents who are nuts and tell them that sex before marriage is a sin and they'll go to hell if they don't wait.
[/b][/quote]SB is right, Pat! And the question here is not about marriage, but about kids who are in 1-st and third grade! [/b][/quote]But it's not 'normal' kids in 1st in 3rd grade. These kids have disabilities!

Kids with learning disabilities may be even behind their age. And well may have, at the same time, more vulnerable psycho than normal kids. Disturbing their mind in such a rude way you may increase their problems. Such things are subject to personal treatment, IMO, and very professional, careful one.

Everyone seems to lose sight of the fact that, as I understand it, the survey was part of a professionally prepared program to help children with learning disabilities, some of wwhich, presumably, could have been caused by their attitudes about sex.

And aparently the parents of these kids were not getting them the careful and personal treatment they required, because if they had, they would not have consented to their participation in this program.

I must've missed it, but where is it said in the original article that their parents consented to participation in such program as you described? As far as I understood, they didn't know it had something to do with sex at all.

But it never says that parents consented to participate in a program having questions about sex! How can they know what do they give to their children in schools? Especially note that the program was meant to ASSIST to design program to help disabled children, not to treat these very children!

There are a lot of things in this story which are, to say the least, a bit vague.

Yes, I too had the impression that they were developing a program to assist in helping children with learning disabilities, not necessarily that this was the program itself, but I also had the impression that they were surveying those children with disabilites.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, we don't have the complete decision of the judge here, either.

I think that we can, or should, agree here that

-- In general, first, third, and fifth graders are too young to be surveyed about their attitudes towards sex.

-- Parents should not sign consent forms about school programs without knowing exactly what they are consenting to.

-- If trained professionals feel that surveying children with learning disabilites about their attitudes toward sex will be helpful in developing a program to treat these children, they should be allowed to unless the parents have a specific objection to them doing so.

I think the main problem here is the amoral messages we get from Hollywood, sports stars, and the media in general, who promote lives where sex is a carefree act in parity with wiping your arse or picking up a ringing telephone, rather than a significant gesture of love and affection. We should give them a warm welcome to reality...

Why is there something automatically "wrong" if that is what they believe; if that is a key to their moral system, and it isn't hurting you in any way?

For instance, I could say the same thing about your immorality with regards to drugs and alcohol, I could say it is "wrong," because it conflicts with my values.

To dismiss something outright as "wrong" when it is someones personal belief is ignorant. You're not taking into account that someone could say the same thing about your actions, or contemplating the reasonings behind their methodology, and the effects of those who follow that methodology.

Who exactly is "us?" You? Me? The BB? The United States? The world community at large?

I'm posing a question to you, Pat. Why is it unrealistic to promote moral values in today's society? I mean, why is your view explicitly correct (or, "right,"), yet a view that conflicts with yours for legitimate reasons is "wrong." Please elaborate.

DC they don't. The schools also have the right to discipline kids. So do the police if the kids are really bad.

Hannity and Combs are going to talk about this exact issue right now.


Don Cardi

That idoitic court said that parents do not have the sole right to influence their children when they teach them about sexual matters.

It turns out that these kids were asked questions like how often they touched themselves, how much they thought about sex, etc.! Outrageous! Elementary school children 6 and 7 years old being asked how often they touch themsleves! :rolleyes:

And they had a sex education teachimg expert on that said Sex Eucation NEVER asks personal questions to students. It is just supposed to teach and answer questions.

Those who implemented this survey of these little kids should be ashamed of themselves. Sick bastards!


Don Cardi

Did they say if the children being surveyed were the ones with the learning disabilities, and the survey was part of the program designed or being designed to help them, or if these were just "regular" kids?

That's one of the key issues here, I think.

If trained professionals felt that these were appropriate questions because the kids attitudes about sex might have had something to do with their disability, that's one thing.

If not, that's a different story.

Plaw, please give us a damn break with your disability bullshit arguement. Bottom line is the parents were NEVER told that THEIR 6, 7 and 8 year old children, not the school's children, not the states children, but THEIR OWN children were going to be asked questions about sex that contained questions like how many times a day they touched themselves or how many thoughts they had about sex.

Mentally disabled or not, these people had absolutely no right to ask these little children those kinds of questions without letting the parents know what the content of that survey would be and getting the parents permission first.


Anyway you keep bringing up this poor excuse that maybe they were mentally challenged kids, but no where in any story have I heard your claim.

Trained pros? What in the world gives a so called trained pro the right to make a decision like that, involving little children, without the PARENTS knowing? It doesn't matter. You don't ask 6, 7 and 8 year olds what their sexual desires may be. It's sick. End of story.


Don Cardi

First of all, the part about this survey involving children with disabilities is clearly mentioned in the story

The district's attorney, Dennis Walsh, said the survey was not to sexually exploit children but instead was part of a legitimate program to help students.

It was part of a program to gauge exposure to early trauma and to assist in designing a program for children to overcome barriers to learning, according to the district.

Second of all, as I said in my last post,

Did they say if the children being surveyed were the ones with the learning disabilities, and the survey was part of the program designed or being designed to help them, or if these were just "regular" kids?

That's one of the key issues here, I think.

If trained professionals felt that these were appropriate questions because the kids attitudes about sex might have had something to do with their disability, that's one thing.

If not, that's a different story.

Thirdly, I have also said in this thread that the consent form provided to the parents should have included the fact that the child participants would be surveyed about their attitudes towards sex.

So what's the problem?

That's the problem.


Look if you feel that it's appropriate for someone to decide to ask your 6 year old child, without your knowledge, how many times a day they touch themselves, then that's you. It's not me. Personally I think it's sick and inappropriate.


Don Cardi

Let me say it one more time....

The consent form provided to the parents should have included the fact that the child participants would be surveyed about their attitudes towards sex.


Earlier in this thread, I said pretty much the same thing here:

and here:

and here:

and here:

So, quite frankly DC, this comment of yours mystifies me:

Clearly, I do not think it appropriate for my six year old child to be asked questions of a sexual nature without my knowledge, and I would appreciate it if you stopped implying that I did.

You forgot and here:

Did you not say this or am I implying that you did?


Don Cardi

Obviously I said it.

But your statement concerned consent

if you feel that it's appropriate for someone to decide to ask your 6 year old child, without your knowledge, how many times a day they touch themselves, then that's you. It's not me. Personally I think it's sick and inappropriate.

That's what I was responding to, since your statement implies that I thought it was OK without consent.

As far as this goes:

Let me elaborate and try and explain here.....

A survey administered in a school which is designed to uncover the sexual attitudes a six year old should not be done without the parents consent. Period. parental consent is an absolute must, regardless of the reasons for the survey

I believe I have made my opinion on that issue perfectly clear.

So now we come to the purpose of the survey.

If its purpose was to merely gather statistics or something, or provide information for a book that the school psychologist happened to be writing, I think it would be totally unnecessary; however, if the school wished to conduct such a survey anyway, and the parents consented to having their child participate, I don't see that there's a problem, although I personally would not have my child particpate.

However, if professional psychiatrists or psychologists were desiging or administering a program designed to help children with learning diabilities, and they felt that knowing these childrens attitudes about sex would help in the development or administering of such a program, and my child had a learning disability, after fully investigating the program and finding it to my satisfaction, I would consent to my child's participation.

As far as the "sex survey" part of the program goes, I would guess that it was included because the developers of the program felt that there was the possibility that my child's attitudes about sex might possibly be one of the causes of the problem, and I suspect that that is the answer I would be given during my investigation of the program, in which case I would not have a problem with that aspect of it.

I had posted something before, but don't remember getting a response, so I will reraise the issue. Did it occur to anyone that these questions may have been geared toward protecting these children from sexual abuse? Either from adult pedophiles or other students?

Children are naturally at risk because of their innocence, and I would imagine that these children are even more vulnerable because of their learning disabilities. Perhaps, as Plaw suggested, part of their disability is an inappropriate sexual attitude.

I agree with both Plaw and DC that the parents should have been given full disclosure of the content in their consent forms, but why did they consent if they didn't know the content?? If my child was going to participate in some sort of "study" or "survey", I'd sure as hell want to know what it was going to be about.